View 3753 Cases Against Railway
ASHOK KUMAR filed a consumer case on 14 Dec 2018 against RAILWAY in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/1185/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Jan 2019.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, Panchkula
First Appeal No.1185 of 2017 Date of Institution: 06.10.2017
Date of Decision: 14.12.2018
Ashok Kumar Prajapat R/ovillage Mohalla Distt, Hisar, Haryana 125042.
…..Appellant
Versus
1. Incharge, Railway Station Ambala Cantt. Ambala.
2. DRM, Ambala Division, Ambala.
…..Respondents
CORAM: Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member. Mrs. Manjula, Member
Present: Shri Ashok Kumar appellant in person.
Mrs. V.B.Sethi, Advocate for the respondents.
O R D E R
RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that on 15.11.2012 complainant started his journey by train from Karnal to Chandigarh with ticket and when he reached at railway station, he felt direct smoking problem. He wanted to lodge a complaint, but, no security personnel were there. He approached office of DM at Ambala cantt as well as Chief ticket Inspect and narrated the whole story, but, they refused to redress his grievance. the complainant and the culprit of smoking were taken to the office of Chief ticket inspector. The culprit was fined but due to negligent act of the Ops, the complainant had to travel by road after purchasing another ticket. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.
2. O.Ps. filed joint reply controverting its averments. O.ps. alleged that smoking on railway station and in trains was a punishable act. The complainant alongwith the culprit had come to the office of CTI , where the offender was charged for Rs.200/-. The complainant was asked to continue his journey but he willful came down from the train after leaving the train. He was having a general train ticket valid for 24 hours but he did not avail the same. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.
3. After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 31.08.2017.
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
5. This argument has been advanced by Ashok Kumar appellant in person as well as Mrs. V.B.Sethi, the learned counsel for the respondents. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.
6. It is quietly seen on public places, which includes the railway station, bus stands, the railway platforms or other important places, there are people who do not abide the terms and conditions, rules and regulations that the smoking is strictly prohibited on the public places as the same is causing the health hazardous and also one of the factors for raising the percentage of the pollution.
7. It is incumbent duty of the railway authorities to ensure that smoking is strictly prohibited and no one is present at the railway station should be allowed to smoke and if allowed to smoke, it is a lethargic attitude on the part of the Railway Police Force (RPF) as well as the other law enforcing agencies. The agencies enlarge the scope of imposing the restrictions upon the smokers. The office of Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala is hereby directed to ensure and to issue a appropriate directions that no passenger or any person who is present at the railway station or within his jurisdiction, the smoking is strictly prohibited and the wrong doers are penalized as per law. With these observations, the present appeal stands disposed of.
December 14th, 2018 Mrs. Manjula Ram Singh Chaudhary, Member Judicial Member Addl.Bench Addl.Bench
S.K.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.