Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/238/2015

Ms. Vibha Dhiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Haryana Transport Commissioner, - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	238/2015
Date of Institution	:	13.05.2015
Date of Decision	:	13/07/2015

 

                                                

                                               

Ms.Vibha Dhiman r/o # 5507, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                      ...  Complainant.

Versus

The Haryana Transport Commissioner, 2^nd Floor, 30 Bays, Building Sector 17, Chandigarh.

…. Opposite Party.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Rohit Goswami, Adv. for the complainant

                        OP exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           In brief, the case of the complainant is that  on 21.04.2015, she alongwith her maternal uncle and aunt was travelling to Delhi from Chandigarh in Haryana State Transport Volvo Bus No.HR-55-S-4602 by purchasing the tickets worth Rs.1560/- (Rs.520/- per ticket).  They were allotted Seat Nos.34 to 36. They boarded the bus at ISBT, Sector-17, Chandigarh at 9.00 A.M.  It has further been averred that she and her maternal aunt & uncle occupied the Seats No.34, 35 and 36 respectively. After the bus crossed Ambala, her aunt realized that the seat No.35 was defective as the said seat could not be extended due to non-functioning of the push back seat button due to which she suffered a lot of inconvenience during her journey. It has further been averred that  after the crossing of the Zirakpur, the conductor of the bus started playing film on the TV and when he did not start the rear TV and on enquiry he informed that the rear TV screen was not working as it had a crack. Due to this reason, she, her maternal aunt and uncle could not see the TV and it became difficult for them to pass the time.  It has further been averred that to further add to the agony of the complainant and her relatives during the journey, the heat of the sun came directly on the uncle of the complainant as he was occupying the window seat. As the uncle of the complainant was suffering from “Macular hole” in one of his eyes, he faced a lot of discomfort due to the sun heat. According to the complainant, the glass window of the bus was without a sun shade/protector/curtain and against the prescribed standards as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as Avishek Goenka Vs. UOI, decided by a Three Judge Bench on 27.04.2012. It has further been averred that   during their entire journey, they had to face a lot of discomfort and harassment due to the poor maintenance of the bus. Subsequently, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 21.04.2015 at the e-mail I.D. of the OP Department but to no effect.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.           Notice was sent for the service of the Opposite Party through registered post on 20.05.2015.  However, neither the same was received back served/unserved till date.  As the period of more than 30 days had passed, therefore, it was presumed that it had been duly served.  None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party on the date fixed, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.06.2015.
3.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.           In her exparte evidence, the complainant has placed on record copies of the bus tickets worth Rs.1560/- issued by Haryana State Transport.  She has also placed on record the copy of the notice sent to the OP at the e-mail address of the OP-Department.  The complainant has also placed on record her detailed affidavit besides the affidavits of her maternal aunt –Smt.Birj Bala and uncle- Sh.Surinder Bimbrahw. She has also placed on record the angiography report of Sh.Surinder Bimbrahw issued by Shroff Eye Centre duly signed by Dr.Shishir Narain to prove that her uncle is suffering from the eye problem.  In all the affidavits filed on behalf of the complainant, the averments as made in the complaint were reiterated.  The Opposite Party is under obligation to upkeep the maintenance of the buses and to take care of the comfort of the passengers travelling in their buses. Furthermore, the Opposite Party despite due service did not care to contest the case and, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either it admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter.   Hence, the Opposite Parity is found to be deficient in rendering the promised services to the complainant.
5.           The complainant has sought refund of the bus ticket but we are of the considered view that since the complainant has already completed her journey and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to refund the price of the bus ticket.  Moreover, the object of Consumer Protection Act is not to enrich the complainant at the cost of the service provider and its object is only to adequately compensate the consumer.
6.           The complainant has sought refund of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the discomfort suffered by her uncle and aunt but they have not been made parties to the complaint and as such no compensation could be granted to the complainant for discomfort/mental agony suffered by them.  However, the complainant is held entitled to the compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her during her journey in the bus, which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-.
7.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed as under :-

1. To pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment.
2. To pay Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation.

8.           This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.2,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.
9.           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

13/07/2015

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER