HON’BLE MR. DINESH SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Taken up through video conferencing.

1.         This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) [corresponding Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the ‘Act 2019’)] in challenge to the Order dated 15.01.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 176 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 28.06.2019 in C.C. No. 541 of 2018 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (the ‘District Commission’).

The Petitioners, Haryana Roadways, were the Opposite Parties before the District Commission (the ‘Roadways’).

The Respondent, Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, was the Complainant before the District Commission (the ‘Complainant’).

2.         Arguments heard from the learned Counsel for the Roadways.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 28.06.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 15.01.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3.         The Petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 246 days. Notwithstanding the COVID-19 situation mentioned insipidly in para 6 of the application for condonation of delay, the reasons contained in paras 3 to 9 of the said application essentially point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation.

Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not visible.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Roadways, to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the Petition is condoned.

4.         Succinctly, the matter in issue relates to cancellation of bus service by the Roadways without reasonable timely prior intimation to the passengers (the Complainant and his lady wife) in violation of its own terms and conditions, making the refund of the amount paid for the e-ticket only after email correspondence by the Complainant and making the said refund with some deduction.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 28.06.2019 dismissed the Complaint.

The State Commission, vide its impugned Order dated 15.01.2020, accepted the Appeal instituted by the Complainant. It set aside the Order of the District Commission and partly allowed the Complaint.

5.         The rival contentions have been succinctly captured by the State Commission in paras 2 and 3 of its Order of 15.01.2020:

2.         It was the admitted case of both the parties before the Forum that the complainant booked two Volvo bus tickets from Chandigarh to Delhi Airport through online e-ticketing service of the opposite parties for 19.10.2018 at 01:26 A.M. by paying an amount of Rs. 1,360/- towards basic fair plus Rs.50/- as reservation charges. The complainant and his wife were having their flight from Delhi Airport to Goa. However, when they reached the Chandigarh Bus Stand to board the bus at the scheduled date and time, he was shocked to know that the said bus had been cancelled by the opposite parties. With no other alternative, the complainant booked private taxi from Chandigarh bus stand to Delhi Airport by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- as taxi fair. It was his case that the opposite parties did not intimate the complainant qua cancellation of the bus well in time i.e. before 19.10.2018, as a result whereof, he suffered lot of mental pain and agony due to said deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties.

3.         The stand of the opposite parties before the Forum was that the cancellation of bus was due to strike of Haryana Roadways Employees for the period from 16.10.2018 to 02.11.2018. It was stated that the employees union extended the strike continuously for 18 days and information regarding strike was being published in various newspapers regularly. It was further stated that prior intimation regarding cancellation of buses could not be sent to the passengers including the complainant as the strike was sudden and beyond the control of the opposite parties. The opposite parties placed reliance on their terms and conditions on e-ticketing/reservation whereunder, Haryana Roadways may delay/cancel a service without any prior notice in case of circumstances beyond its control and in such circumstances, enable a full refund of the e-ticket as paid by the passenger and shall be under no further liability to the passenger.

6.         The appraisal made by the State Commission in paras 4 to 8 of its Order is reproduced below for ready appreciation:

4.         In the instant case, refund of two e-tickets of Rs. 1,360/- had been made to the complainant through online transaction dated 26.10.2018. However, transaction charges of Rs. 50/- were not refunded.

5.         It may be stated here that during the course of arguments, Counsel for the respondent stated that prior intimation qua cancellation could not be given to the complainant as whole of the staff whether administrative or technical was on strike. We are not going to accept such a vague argument. The opposite parties cannot take shelter for their deficiency in rendering service in not intimating as regards the cancellation under the garb of strike of drivers or conductors of buses.

6.         It is important to mention here that in the terms and conditions governing Haryana Roadways (Annexure D-1) placed on record by the opposite parties alongwith their reply, there is clear cut stipulation that “The trips are subject to cancellation or postponement due to breakdown of the vehicle or insufficient passengers for the trip. Under such circumstances passengers will be intimated thorugh email/phone as soon as possible and the e-Ticket amount will be refunded……”. Though, there was a strike of conductors or drivers but the whole staff including administrative staff of Haryana Roadways could not be expected to go on strike by leaving the complainant in lurch. Their own terms and conditions, as quoted above, make it mandatory and necessary to intimate as regards the cancellation of bus/trip to the passenger through email/phone as soon as possible. However, the opposite parties left the complainant in lurch by not doing so. They tried to put off their responsibility and duty by saying that the circumstances were beyond their control.

7.         It is not only the complainant, who suffered on account of deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties but there must be several other passengers also who had booked online tickets. The public at large including the complainant suffered due to cancellation of buses by Haryana Roadways. One can imagine what would be the plight of a consumer/passenger, who had to board a flight from Delhi and on reaching Chandigarh Bus Stand came to know that the bus, in question, had been cancelled and he had to hire a taxi by shelling extra amount from his pocket. It is natural that when a person obtains a ticket in advance, he will come to board the bus 10 to 15 minutes before the departure and can never be aware of the cancellation of the bus in advance. It may also be stated here that transport service for the carriage of passenger is an essential public utility service under Section 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 and strike by the employees cannot be to the detriment of convenience of the public at large. We find that the opposite parties are deficient in providing service to the complainant by not intimating him in advance about the cancellation of the bus ticket through email or otherwise or sending a SMS and by not making any alternative arrangement for the complainant. Non intimation as regards cancellation of bus to the complainant caused much hardship to him. No such steps have been taken by the opposite parties in this case to give alternative assistance to the complainant, causing him much inconvenience, upsetting his schedule of journey thereby causing a lot of tension, mental agony apart from monetary loss to him.

8.         In our considered opinion, the Forum wrongly dismissed the complaint without appreciating the facts and material available on record and as such, the impugned order passed by the Forum being illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant deserves to be partly allowed.

7.         The State Commission made the following Award vide para 9 of its Order of 15.01.2020:

9.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.06.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh, dismissing consumer complaint bearing No. 541 of 2018, is set aside. Consumer Complaint bearing No. 541 of 2018 is partly allowed against the respondents / opposite parties with costs and they are, jointly and severally, directed as under:-

(i) to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant paid by him as taxi fare within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @9% per annum, from the date of default i.e. after expiry of period of 45 days till actual realization.

(ii) to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellant/complainant, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amounts shall carry interest @9% per annum, from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

8.         It is seen that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order.

The Complainant had booked an e-ticket, for himself and his lady wife, from Chandigarh to New Delhi, for Rs.1360/-. The terms and conditions stipulated that on cancellation or postponement due to breakdown of the vehicle or insufficient passengers, the passengers will be intimated through email / phone as soon as possible and the e-ticket amount will be refunded. In the instant case, the cancellation of the service was due to a strike by the Roadways’ employees. This contingency is not mentioned in the terms and conditions. However, it has been observed by the State Commission that the strike was by the conductors and drivers and the entire staff including the administrative staff could not be expected to be on strike. Additionally, strike by its employees is an internal administrative matter of the Roadways. It should not and can not be a ground to condone the duty cast on the Roadways by its own terms and conditions that in case of cancellation or postponement the passengers will be intimated through email / phone as soon as possible and the e-ticket amount will be refunded.

The Complainant was not intimated “as soon as possible”, neither was he intimated within reasonable time prior to the scheduled departure of the bus. At 01:26 a.m. on 19.10.2018 the online status showed that the bus was scheduled for departure at 02.40 a.m. The Complainant came to know of the cancellation only when he and his lady wife reached the bus station. By the Roadways’ own contention the strike was from 16.10.2018 to 02.11.2018, as such nothing prevented it from updating its online portal in respect of the relevant date i.e. 19.10.2018. The aspect of updating its portal, which was essentially for the timely information of the passengers, was left unaddressed.

Alternative arrangements were not facilitated.

The consequential trouble and travail, loss and injury, of having to anyhow engage a taxi for Rs.10,000/-, at an odd hour, for himself and his lady wife, to enable them to be in time for a pre-booked air service from New Delhi to Goa, is self-evident.

It is manifest that the Roadways did not discharge the onus of informing the Complainant regarding the cancellation of the bus service in time, did not update its online portal despite sufficient opportunity, and then agitated on a wholly untenable ground that its conductors and drivers were on strike. As already said, strike by its employees is its internal managerial problem, and not of the consumers.

Though the amount may be paltry, it but bears significance and is material that a deduction of Rs. 50/- was made while refunding the Rs. 1360/- for the e-ticket, and the refund with deduction was made only after email correspondence by the Complainant. The Roadways did not discharge its onus of dutifully and promptly making the refund, in full, and, albeit, with courteous regrets or apology, when it was the service provider and was unmistakably deficient in its service.

The proved facts of the case unquestionably contain the ingredients of ‘deficiency’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986 (corresponding Section 2(11) of the Act 2019).

The District Commission erred in not appreciating the facts and evidence correctly.

The Award made by the State Commission appears just and equitable in the facts of the case.

The State Commission’s impugned Order, as already said, is well-appraised and has been passed with valid reasons recorded. No jurisdictional error or a legal principle ignored or miscarriage of justice is visible. Nothing warrants interference by this Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 (corresponding Section 21(b) of the Act 1986).

9.         The Petition, being bereft of worth, is dismissed.

The Award made by the State Commission is confirmed.

The Award shall be made good within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. Towards this end, the amount if any deposited with the District Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 09.03.2021, along with interest if any accrued thereon, shall be forthwith released to the Complainant by the District Commission as per the due procedure and after the due verification.

The Roadways shall be at liberty to recover the awarded amount from its officials responsible.

10.       The Roadways through its Chief Executive is advised to immediately inculcate and imbibe systemic improvements to avert such deficiency in future.

11.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the Petition and the learned Counsel for the Roadways as well as to the District Commission and the State Commission within three days from today. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission today itself.