IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:14.07.2014

First Appeal-482/11

(Arising out of the order dated 09.08.2011 passed in Complainant Case No. 454/2008 passed by District Forum Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari, New Delhi)

In the matter of:

V.P.Sharma

R/o A-4/32 (Orietnal Enclave)

Indraprastha Extention,

Delhi-110092                ………….Appellant

Versus

1. Haryana Roadways

Through Regional Manager

Or flying Squad Officer

Haryana Roadways ISBT, Delhi

1. G.M.Haryana Roadways,

Banda Bhahdur Marg,

Mukerji Nagar, Delhi

1. Deport Manager

Narnaul Depot

Haryana Roadways

Narnaul, Haryana     ……….Respondents

CORAM

S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

S.C.Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

1.       This appeal has been filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dt. 09.08.2011 passed by the District Forum (North)Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 454/09 V.P.Sharma V/s Haryana Roadways.
2.       The relevant facts relating to this appeal are that Sh. V.P.Sharma is a Practicing Lawyer.  It has been alleged that during the intervening night of 28/29.09.2007, he boarded a Haryana roadways Bus No. HR-66-2932 at about 1:20 a.m. from ISBT, Delhi to Chandigarh.  He was allotted the seat No. 23.   On 29.09.2007, he was scheduled to attend an important hearing in the Shimla High Court at 10:00 a.m.  The bus started from ISBT Delhi and when it reached Singhu Border, Delhi, there was breakdown and it stopped there.  Despite this the conductor & driver of the bus did not bother and they did not contact higher authorities of Haryana Roadways as was expected from them.  From their conduct it appeared that the breakdown of the bus was deliberate and wilful. The complainant as well as other passengers on request of doing the needful misbehaved with them and left them at isolated place.  Frustrated, the complainant gave a call to police control room at No. 100 and the complaint was recorded dt. 29.09.2007. The conductor and driver of the bus left the place leaving the passengers at the spot.  There was no solution of the problem insight and complainant was forced to board another bus at 5:00 am.  In the process the complainant suffered lot of mental torture and physical strain and missed an important hearing in the High Court at Shimla, as he could not reach in time.  He therefore, filed the complaint against the OPs for directions to refund the amount charged for services with penalty and to pay damages for harassment to the extent of Rs. 2 Lac and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of litigation.
3.       The OP-Haryana Roadways filed written statement denying the allegations in the complaint. However, it was not disputed that during the intervening night of 28/29.09.2007 bus No. HR-66-2932 had started from ISBT Delhi to Chandigarh.  It was further not disputed that the bus broke-down at Singhu Border.  But the OP maintained that the complainant was not a bonafide passenger of that bus as tickets filed by him were not tallying with the tickets issued with Advance Booking Voucher of the concerned bus dt. 29.09.2007.  As a matter of fact the tickets which have been filed by the complainant were actually issued for their distribution on 15.03.2006 to Bus No. 1284 vide booking way bill No. 93998.  It was also alleged that when the bus broke-down at Singhu Border, the passengers of the said bus were accommodated in another bus coming on the same route and duty section of Narnaul Debot was also informed regarding the said break-down. Not only this a mechanic was called to repair the bus. Therefore, averments made in complaint were wrong and fabricated and were simply made at extracting money from the OP.  The complaint was baseless and liable to be dismissed. 
4.       Parties led evidence in support of their cases.  Upon consideration of facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum through its impugned order dt. 09.08.2011 dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant failed to prove that he was a bonafide passenger of the bus No. HR-66-2932 which had broken-down at Singhu Border.
5.       The complaint felt aggrieved and preferred this appeal inter alia on the following main grounds besides the others:-

1. That the impugned order dt. 09.08.2011 was perverse and that it was passed without application of judicial mind.
2. That after break-down of the Haryana Roadways Bus No. HR-66-2932, the conductor and driver of the bus were not bothered and have even misbehaved with passengers including the complainant.  Since no assistance was forthcoming, the appellant telephoned police control room at 100 at around 4:00 am and his complaint was recorded at S.No. 9b-dt. 29.09.2007.  The complainant boarded another bus at 5:00 am but could not reach Shimla High Court in time and missed an important hearing on the Shimla High Court.  The complainant suffered a lot of mental pain and agony.  The Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence adduce by the complainant in its real perspective and came to a wrong conclusion that complainant was not a bonafide passenger.  The impugned order dt. 09.08.2011 suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. 
3. The OP/respondents-1,2 & 3 filed reply alleging that the complaint was baseless.  The tickets filed by the complainant did not tally with the voucher of the concerned bus.  The complaint deserved to be dismissed with exemplary costs.  The ticket number mentioned in the complaint and filed did not tally with the advanced booking way bill of the concerned bus dt. 29.09.2007. After break-down the passengers of the bus were boarded in the next coming bus of the same route and also duty section of the Narnaul Depot was informed regarding the break down.  It was wrong to alleged that the impugned order suffers from illegality or that judicial mind was not applied by the Ld. District Forum while passing the impugned order.  Rather it was based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.  Therefore, the compliant was devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

1.       We have heard Sh. V.P.Sharma appellant in person and Sh. Yashpal Rangi, Counsel for the Respondent.  We have also perused the record. 
2.       It was argued by Sh. V.P.Sharma, that there was no dispute that during the intervening night of 28/29.09.2007 at about 1:20 am bus No. HR-66-2932 of Haryana Roadways started from ISBT Delhi to Chandigarh and further that as soon as bus reached at Singhu Border it broke-down.  He had to purchase the ticket of another bus and boarded the same as he was to attend an important hearing in Shimla High Court on 29.09.2007.  Due to break down in the bus and mismanagement thereafter, he had to suffer great mental pain, agony and financial hardship.  He was compelled to board another bus at 5:00 am on 29.09.2007 but could not reached in time and missed an important hearing in the High Court of Shimla at Chandigarh. He was a bonafide passenger of bus No. HR-66-2932.
3.       On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that complainant/appellant was not a bonafide passenger of bus No.  HR-66-2932.  Copies of four tickets filed by the complainant bearing No. 570355 for Rs. 19/-, 831313 for Rs. 95/-, 902858 for Re.1/- and  735628 for Rs. 20/- alleged to have been issued to the complainant were infact issued for distribution on 15.03.2008 to bus No. HR-65-1284 vide booking way bill No. 93998. Copy of this record advance booking way bill dt. 13.03.2008 bearing No. 93998 was proved and filed as Exhibit RW 1/C.  Since tickets in question were issued for distribution only on 15.03.2008, the question of issuance of tickets on 28/29.09.2007 does not arise at all.  Copy of the advance booking way bill dt. 29.08.2007 bearing No. 48463 through which tickets were issued for distribution in bus No. HR-66-2932 shows that copies of tickets placed on record had not been issued for bus No. HR-66-2932. This document has been proved and filed as RW-1/B.  It was emphasized that on the basis of the above documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant/appellant was a bonafide passenger of bus No. HR-66-2932.  Tickets produced by the complainant relate to different bus for different date i.e. 13.03.2008 much after the date in question i.e. 28/09.09.2007.
4.       Besides the aforesaid documentary evidence, OP/respondent also filed an affidavit of Sh. Dharampal, Inspector of the Office of the Flying Squad Officer, for Haryana Roadways, ISBT, Delhi.  Also affidavits of the conductor and driver of HR-66-2932 have been filed  testifying that the complainant was not the bonafide passenger of the bus in question on 28/29.09.2007.  After breakdown of the bus, passengers of the bus were accommodated on other bus coming in the same route and higher section of the Narnaul Depot was duly informed regarding the breakdown.  It was forcefully argued that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
5. Complainant/appellant drew our attention towards copy of the PCR brought on record showing that complainant had given ring to the police control room regarding the breakdown of bus No. HR-66-2932. Time of call in this PCR form-I has been show at 3:54 a.m. dt. 28.09.2007. ASI Sh. Mahesh reached the spot.  It was also recorded in this report that the driver Sh. Balwant Singh had told him that conductor had gone to arrange for another bus and somehow the passengers have been accommodated in another bus going on the same route.  No doubt the DD entry proves that the complainant was present at the spot where bus suffered the breakdown but the photocopies of the tickets brought on record by the complainant do not pertain to bus No. HR-66-2932.  The conductor and driver of this bus specifically said in their affidavits that the complainant was not the passenger of the bus in question.  It was noteworthy that complainant in his affidavit has clearly stated that ticket No. 570355 for Rs. 19/-, No. 831313 for Rs. 95/-, No. 902858 for Re. 1/- and No. 735628 for Rs. 20/- had been issued to him at ISBT booking counter.  The documentary evidence filed by the OP go to show that tickets produced by the complainant were infact issued by booking branch to the conductor vide advance booking way bill dt. 13.03.2008 bearing No. 93998 for distribution on 15.03.2008 in bus HR-65-1284 as shown in advance booking way bill dt. 13.03.2008 bearing No. 93996 of Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra Depot.
6.  It has to be born in mind that a consumer complaint is a case of Civil Nature which are decided on the basis of preponderance of documentary evidence on record.  The weight of evidence on record is in favour of the OP/respondent and not in favour of the complainant/appellant.  Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Ld. District Forum in its impugned order dt. 09.08.2011 was legally sound.  The impugned order thus does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and is liable to be sustained.
   •  
7.  The appeal is therefore found bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.  The impugned order dt. 09.08.2011 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. 454/2009 is hereby confirmed.
8.  Let a copy of the order be provided to the parties free of cost as per rule and thereafter file be consigned to record room.