Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/184/2020

Ashok Kumar Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Haryana State Transport - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	184 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.03.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	07.03.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar Prajapat, R/o Village Mohalla, District Hisar (Haryana) 125042

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Director General, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017 through Director (Chief General Manager, Driver-Conductor & Area Officer of Tobacco), Haryana State Transport, Kaithal 136027

 

2]  Finance Commissioner, Health Department, Haryana, New Secretariat, Opposite Fire Brigade Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017.

 

     ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

         SH.B.M.SHARMA                      MEMBER

 

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

           None for OP No.1.

           Sh.Sachin Indora, Law Officer of OP No.2.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant on 29.9.2018 travelled in the Bus of OP Transport from Chandigarh to Jind on purchase of ticket for an amount of Rs.185/-.  It is averred that during the said journey, when the Bus moved from Kaithal Bus Stand to Jind, one of the passenger started smoking to whom the complainant asked not to smoke, but he did not adhered, which caused him uncomfortable.  It is averred that the conductor of the bus was sitting in front seats of the bus instead of sitting at his marked seat.  It is stated that the complainant reported this matter firstly to the Nodal Office of OPs, but it did not pay any heed.  Then the complainant reported this to the OPs whereupon the OPs imposed a fine of Rs.200/- only on the conductor of said bus.  It is also stated that the action taken by the OPs is just a formality and it did not recommend any measures to stop smoking in future, safety of passengers and compensation as well.  Alleging the said act & conduct of OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

2]       OP No.1 has filed reply stating that a complaint made by the complainant was received by answering OP from O/o Director General, State Transport Haryana Chandigarh on 11.10.2018 through email regarding smoking by passenger on 29.9.2018 and misbehavior by Nodal Officer i.e. Stand Incharge (Ann.R-1).  It is stated that accordingly Enquiry Officer and complainant was called for personal appearance, but the complainant did not appear in the office for personal hearing though replied to the said letter which was received vide diary No.2312 dated 12.11.2018 (Ann.R-3).  It is also averred that even after giving many opportunities, the complainant did not appear in the enquiry.  It is submitted that in enquiry Sh.Parvana Ram, Stand Incharge was acquitted from the allegations leveled upon him as could not be proved and found baseless vide order dated 14.3.2019 (Ann.R-6).  It is also submitted that a letter dated 20.12.2018 was received from the complainant in the O/o General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kaithal on which proper action was taken and the conductor was fined with Rs.1000/- for sitting on the first seat and he was warned to be cautious for not stopping the smokers from smoking in future vide order dated 17.12.2018 (Ann.R-7).  It is pleaded that the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint about his non appearance before the Enquiry Officer  and has not disclosed any medical evidence if he had suffered any health problem in throat or say lungs or respiratory tract due to passive smoking and intake of smoke.  It is also pleaded that the answering OP has taken all necessary and essential steps to meet the justice and equity.

         The OP No.2 has also filed reply stated that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ qua it as no service, whatsoever, has been availed by complainant from it.  It is stated that the complainant has intentionally and deliberately misused and abused the process of law by filing the frivolous claim petition.  Denying other allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs.   

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, Law Officer of OP No.2 and have perused the entire record including written arguments.

6]       The thorough perusal of the record reveals that the issue raised by the complainant with the concerned authorities has been dealt with and proper enquiry has been held by the department concerned wherein the complainant was requested to join the enquiry proceedings, but he did not turn up.  After enquiry the due action was taken by OPs against the delinquent official and he has been penalized with fine of Rs.1000/-.  In our opinion, the complaint lodged by the complainant with the OPs has been redressed by them. 

7]       It is apt to mention that the complainant while filing the present complaint has not appended any cogent documentary evidence to establish his case in regard to health hazards suffered by him due to smoking.  He also failed to prove on record any health problem suffered by him due to any act of OPs while rendering service. 

8]       At the same time, we appreciate the concern of the complainant, who raised a voice against smoking, but Consumer Commission/Fora has a limited scope and that too confined to compensate for any loss/damage suffered by the complainant on account of any deficiency in service committed, in like cases. 

         It is well known fact that Smoking at public place is an offence under The Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition Of Advertisement And Regulation Of Trade And Commerce, Production, Supply And Distribution) Act, 2003, which is defined under Section 4 of the said Act, reproduced as under:-

“4. Prohibition of smoking in a public place.- No person shall smoke in any public place.

Provided that in a hotel having 30 rooms or a restaurant having seating capacity of 30 persons or more and in the airports, a separate provision for smoking area or space may be made.  

 

9]       The quantum of punishment for the offence of smoking committed in public place and the procedure for Trial of the said offence is incorporated in Section 21 of the above referred Act, which is reproduced hereunder for the sake of convenience:-

“21. Punishment for smoking in certain places.– (1) Whoever contravenes the provisions of section 4 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

(2) An offence under this section shall be compoundable and shall be tried summarily in accordance with the procedure provided for summary trials in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”

10]      Undoubtly healthy environment is an essential aspect of the ‘Right to Life’, not only for human beings but also for other animals on the planet.  Violation, therefore, of the right to healthy environment is patently a violation of the basic Fundamental ‘Right to Life’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the protection of violation of fundamental rights is enshrined in Article 32 of The Constitution of India, which is reproduced as under, for the sake of convenience:-

“Article 32 in The Constitution Of India 1949

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution”

 

11]      The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that in cases where a personal right to the enjoyment of pollution free air and water is hampered, he can file P.I.L. for the same.  This landmark judgment was given in case of ‘Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr.’ 1991 AIR 420, 1991 SCR (1)5’.

12]      We are also of the concerted opinion that once grievance has already been addressed and the guilty has already been punished for the offence committed with fine of Rs.1000/- by the OPs, then to punish the same person again for the same offence, under any other Act, shall amount to a case of double jeopardy, which is against the principles of natural justice.

13]      In view of the facts & circumstances of the case, discussion & findings, as made in preceding paragraphs, the present complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

7^th March, 2022                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER