Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/306/2021

Ashok Kumar Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Health Department Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/306/2021
Date of Institution	:	06/05/2021
Date of Decision	:	24/11/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana - 125042.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Financial Commissioner, Health Department Haryana, New Secretariat, Opposite Fire Station, Sector-17, Chandigarh-160017. (Complaint against OP No.1 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023).
2. Through the concerned operators (drivers, conductors, tobacco regional officers and general managers) through Directorate, Haryana State Transport, 30 Beige Bhawan, Sector -17, Chandigarh-160017.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Complaint against OP No.1 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023.
	:	Sh.A.P.S.Virk, ADA for OP No.2.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      From the perusal of allegations made in the consumer complaint, it appears on 29.07.2019, complainant had travelled from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh in Haryana State Transport, Rewari bus for which total tickets cost him Rs.60/- (Annexure C-1). During this trip, he felt the problem of smoke after just walking a short distance. When the complainant searched for a smoker, all he found was the smoking driver, who was smoking while sitting on his seat. The complainant feels extremely suffocated, uncomfortable and insecure due to secondhand smoke. He felt problem of smoking which is against the provisions of COTPA 2003 and smoking material was also being sold. On being resisted, in order to avoid quarrel, complainant did not raise much protest. Fare was also overcharged. He took up the matter with the OPs but with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     Perusal of the file indicates that the complaint against OP No.1 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2023.
3.     Opposite Party No.2 contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the Opposite Party No.2 is that both the driver and conductor have been punished. A fine of Rs.200/- has been imposed on the driver for smoking (Ex.R-1) and a fine of Rs.1000/- has been imposed on the conductor for sitting on the first seat (Ex.R-2). The driver and conductor have been punished. Now another punishment cannot be given, because the fine has been imposed only on the complaint of the complainant. It is further stated that according to the notification and fare list of Haryana Government, the fare from Baldev Nagar Ambala to Chandigarh is only Rs.60/-. Extra charges of Rs.5/- was not charged from the complainant (Ex.R-3). There is neither any deficiency in service nor harassment by the answering respondents. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.   
4.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP No.2 and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The main grievance of the complainant is that during his travel in Haryana State Transport bus from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh on 29.07.2019 he faced problem of smoking and on his complaint the driver of the concerned bus was penalized with fine of Rs.200/- by the OP No.2 but nothing was done against the driver. It is alleged that the OP No.2 has also charged more fare from Baldev Nagar to Chandigarh. Thus, claimed deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8.  On the other hand, the OP No.2 denied the allegations of the complainant and stated that on receiving complaint from the complainant appropriate action was taken against the driver by imposing a fine of Rs.200/- for smoking and the action against the conductor by levying a fine of Rs.1000/- as per rule.  It is denied that the complainant was charged fare in excess.
9.  Coming to the first point whether the OP No.2 had taken action against the officials responsible for smoking at public place.  A thorough perusal of Annexure R-1 & 2 reveals that the OP No.2 has penalized the concerned driver who was smoking by levying Rs.200/- fine as per rules and the conductor was fined with Rs.1000/- for sitting on the first seat.  Hence, the grouse of the complainant that no action was taken against the driver & conductor is incorrect. Hence, this plea of the complainant is rejected having no merit.  
10.     Regarding the 2^nd issue regarding overcharging of the bus fare, we have perused the fare table annexed by the OP No.2. Fare as per table as Annexure R-3 is mentioned clearly as Rs.60/-. Hence, we are of the view that the correct fare of Rs.60/- has been charged by the OP No.2 from the complainant.
11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
			Pawanjit Singh
			President
			Sd/-
24/11/2023			Surjeet Kaur
Ls			Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member