STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.     The Secretary, State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh.

2.     The State Transport Commissioner, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh. (Now designated as Director General State Transport, Haryana, Chandigarh).

3.     The General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

1.     Ravi Khokher, aged 26, residence of House No.184, Sector 16, Chandigarh.

2.     Anveeksha Verma w/o Sh.Ravi Khokher, resident of H.No.184, Sector 16, Chandigarh, and presently staying at Girls Hospital at IIT Kanpur.

              ....Respondents/complainants

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:  None for the appellants.

                   Ms. Tajinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondents.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.03.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants), as under:-

“In view of the above facts & circumstances of the case, it is proved that the OPs were deficient in rendering proper services due to which the complainants had to suffer mental tension, physical harassment as well as financial loss. Therefore, the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to pay Rs.3375/- as taxi fare spent by the complainants to reach their destination at New Delhi as well as to refund Rs.1035/- paid towards the fare of the Bus in question. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainants for causing them mental & physical harassment, apart from litigation cost of Rs.3100/-. 

The order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the above said awarded amount @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 29.11.2011 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation cost of Rs.3100/.”-

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, complainant no.2, studying in MBA, at IIT Kanpur, was required to reach Kanpur, for joining her classes on 09.10.2011. The complainants booked two tickets of Volvo Bus of Haryana Roadways, on 07.10.2011, for a sum of Rs.1030/-,  from Chandigarh to Delhi. On the same day, complainant no.2, also booked railway tickets,  from New Delhi to Kanpur Central (CNB), for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.  On 9.10.2011, when the bus reached the National Highway near Ambala, one truck, which was coming behind the Volvo Bus, hit the same (Bus).  The driver and the conductor stopped the bus, on highway, to check the damage. In the meanwhile, another truck, coming behind, from the same route, hit the bus again, from back side, and it fell into a ditch, causing death of one person at the spot. It was stated that the complainants, waited for sometime there, with the hope that the driver may arrange any alternative bus, for the passengers, but surprisingly, no other arrangements were made. It was further stated that the complainants had to hire a taxi, from Ambala Cantt. to New Delhi, of KG Tours and Travels, (infact K.G.N. Tour Travels), by paying  a sum of Rs.3,375/-. It was further stated that it was the duty of the Officers/Officials of the Haryana Roadways, to provide some other service, to the passengers, to enable them to reach their destinations, in time, but they failed to do so. It was further stated that, in this manner, a lot of harassment and mental agony was caused to the complainants. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, stated that, on 09.10.2011, when the bus reached near Ambala- National Highway, the driver stopped the bus, on the side of road, due to technical snag therein. It was further stated that when the driver and conductor alighted from the bus, to check the snag, suddenly a speedy truck, hit the bus from the rear side, as a result whereof, the bus was pushed into the side road gorge, and dragged the conductor, who was standing in front of the same, as also pushed the driver aside of the road.  It was further stated that the driver of the bus, suffered head injuries, whereas, the conductor of the bus Sh.Jitender, died at the spot. It was further stated that it was not possible to arrange some other bus, immediately, for the complainants and other passengers. It was further stated that, in these circumstances, the first and foremost duty of the Opposite Parties, was to rescue the passengers, inside the bus. It was further stated that, another bus was arranged, through the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Ambala, to help the passengers, but the complainants, without waiting for the bus, and without informing the authorities, left the spot of accident. It was further stated that, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, referred to above, it could not be said that the complainants were harassed and caused mental agony, on account of the acts of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.             After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, Govt. Pleader for the Opposite Parties, alongwith Sh. Dalbir Singh, General Manger of Opposite Party No.3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening paragraph of the instant order. 

6.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

7.              On two-three dates, Dr. Rajiv Prashad, DAG, put in appearance, on behalf of the appellants/Opposite Parties. On 13.08.2012, when the appeal was fixed for arguments, none put in appearance, on behalf of the appellants/Opposite Parties, whereas the Counsel for the respondents/complainants, put in appearance.

8.             In these circumstances, this Commission was of the considered opinion, that the appeal should be decided on merits, as envisaged by the Provisions of Rule 8(6) of Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.

9.             We have heard the Counsel for the respondents, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

10.           There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that the complainants, booked two tickets of Volvo Bus, of Haryana Roadways, on 07.10.2011, for a sum of Rs.1030/-, from Chandigarh to Delhi, as complainant no.2, who was studying in MBA at IIT Kanpur, was required to reach Kanpur, for joining her classes on 9.10.2011. It was also, not disputed, that complainant no.2, had also booked railway tickets, from New Delhi to Kanpur, for a sum of Rs.1,000/-. It was almost admitted by the Opposite Parties, in their joint written reply, that, on 09.10.2011, when the bus, reached near Ambala- National Highway, it suffered from some technical snag therein, and was stopped, whereas the driver and the conductor alighted from the same, to check the snag. It was, at that spot, where the driver stopped the bus that suddenly a speedy truck, coming behind it, hit the same(bus), from the rear side, followed by an another hit by the truck. It is further evident, from the affidavit of Ravi Khokher, complainant no.1, that the bus was stopped, in the mid of the Ambala- National Highway, instead of taking it to the one side of the road. In case, some technical snag had developed, in the bus, it was the duty of the driver and conductor of the bus, to take the same, on one side of the road, instead of parking the same, in the mid of the National Highway. No doubt, the Opposite Parties, in their written reply, took up the plea that, the bus was parked on one side of the road, when it was hit by a speedy truck. However, such a plea is not proved from any evidence. A short affidavit of Mr. Dalbir Singh, HCS, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, by way of evidence, was filed. This cannot be read into evidence. Thus, hitting of the bus, by a speedy truck, when it was parked in the mid of the highway, could be solely attributed to the negligent act of the driver and the conductor, employees of the Opposite Parties..

11.           The next question, that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether, any alternative arrangement, was made for the passengers, who were stranded, on account of the accident of the bus, in which the complainants were traveling or not. Complainant no.1, in his affidavit, in clear-cut terms, stated that no alternative arrangement, for carrying the passengers, to the destinations, was made by the Opposite Parties. No doubt, a plea was taken by the Opposite Parties, in the written reply, that such arrangement was made. However, no evidence, in that regard, was produced. The short affidavit filed by Mr. Dalbir Singh, HCS, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Chandigarh, by way of evidence, as stated above, cannot be read into evidence. The number of the bus, which was fetched, by way of an alternative arrangement; the Depot from which that bus was allegedly called; and the names of the driver and the conductor of that bus, were not mentioned. Even, the affidavit of none of the passengers, who were traveling in the bus, was produced, to prove that any other bus was arranged, for taking the passengers, who were stranded, on account of the accident, to their destinations. One can well imagine, the plight of the passengers, who were stranded, on the way, on account of the accident, and the Opposite Parties, did not take care of them. They did not even take care of the matter that complainant no.2, had to reach her destination, by further taking the train from Delhi. A lot of harassment, and mental agony, was, thus, caused to the complainants, on account of the acts of omission and commission, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was, thus, right in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, to the complainants.

12.           Annexure-C is a copy of the receipt issued by K.G.N Tour Travels, Ambala Cantt., produced by the complainants. According to this document, a sum of Rs.3,375/- was charged as taxi hiring charges  from the complainants, from Ambala Cantt. to Delhi. This document was duly proved by complainant no.1, in his affidavit, produced by him, by way of evidence. The complainants were put to financial loss, on account of hiring of a taxi, by paying a sum of Rs.3,375/-, on account of the deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties. The District Forum was, thus, right in ordering the refund of this amount.

13.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the respondents.

14.           In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

August 14, 2012

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg