Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/479/2022

Norah Johal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary, Transport Authority U.T Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Aruna Sachdeva

02 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	479/2022
Date of Institution	:	02.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	02.05.2024

 

                                       

               

Norah Johal d/o Sh.Rajinder Singh Johal r/o Bhagwanpura, Kuchha Dosanjh, Road Moga.

...Complainant 

Versus

1.     The Secretary, Transport Authority, UT, Chandigarh Office of State Transport Authority, UT, Chandigarh Sector 18-A, Madhya Marg, Near Govt. Printing Press, Chandigarh -160018.

2.     The Deputy Inspector Long Route Operation CTU, Department of Transportation, Plot No.701, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

….Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:
	SHRI AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,	PRESIDENT
	SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
PRESENT:-
	Ms.Aruna Sachdeva, Counsel for complainant Sh.Sachin Dhillon, GP for OPs along with Sh.Narinder Singh, Sub-Inspector of CTU.

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019(as amended up-to-date) pleading therein that  she boarded the CTU Bus bearing registration No.CH-01-GA-1463 on 16.06.2021 at 7.30 a.m. from Sector 43, ISBT, Chandigarh destined to Ludhiana  by paying Rs.160/- as bus fare.  The said bus was being driven at a high speed and after a few minutes of journey, the driver took a turn from Morinda Flyover at the same high speed as a result of which he lost control over the bus and it topped. The passengers were rescued by passersby and many of them were sent to Morinda General Hospital and some of them were put into another bus coming to Chandigarh and ambulances.  The complainant was brought to GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh where on examination her collarbone and shoulder were found to be broken and she underwent the treatment and remained on bed with blaster and sling for nearly three months.  Due to the accident, she could not join her duties and also undergone terrible pain and trauma.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the OPs to pay Rs.3.50 lakhs for treatment along with compensation and litigation expenses.     
2. In their written version, the OPs have stated that on 16/06/2021 Sh. Gurdarshan Singh, D.No.795 was performing the duty as driver and Sh.Satbir Singh, C.No.164 as conductor on the bus in question and the same was scheduled from ISBT-43, Chandigarh at 7:16 AM. to Ludhiana. As per record when the bus reached near Maroli By-ass near Class Factory, Morinda, at that time, the tyre of the bus was struck due to technical fault and the bus was overturned and some of the passengers who were travelling in the said bus sustained injuries including the complainant and their officials looked after and taken care of all the passengers. After enquiry, it was held that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligence act of the driver. The police official of Police Station-City Morinda, District Rupnagar (Punjab) also verified the facts regarding the accident and recorded GD No.42 dated 16/6/2021 (Annexure C-2) and recorded entry in General Diary Detail and also held that the accident of the bus was taken place due to technical fault and no one is responsible for the accident. It has further been stated that only 34 passengers boarded against the capacity of 52 seats. It has further been stated that neither the complainant nor any of the passenger lodged any complaint to the police against the driver of the bus stating that the accident of the bus had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the driver of the bus is having valid driving license. It has further been stated that the bus is insured with the New India Assurance Pvt. Ltd on the date of the accident and the claim if any is to be payable by the insurance company under the provisions  of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In the last, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of the OPs and controverted the stand taken by the OPs and reiterated the averments as made in the complaint.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the documents including the written submissions.
5. The only question to be determined in the present  complaint is whether the complaint seeking compensation arising out of the motor vehicle accident is maintainable before this Commission or not.
6. The facts with regard to the injuries received by the complainant in the bus being driven by the driver of the OPs are not disputed.  It is also clear from the prayer clause of the complaint that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.3.50 lakhs spent by her on her treatment due to the injuries received in the accident along with compensation for mental agony and harassment.  
7.         It is relevant to state here that the Claims Tribunal constituted for the area in question had the jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the motor vehicular accident since such a claim application would clearly fall within the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which said to be a special Act in relation to claims of compensation arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.  

                Reliance here is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India  reported in 1995 AIR (SC) 1384 titled as The Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Versus The Consumer Protection Council  in which it was held as under:-

        “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 20 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 — “Jurisdiction” — “Claims Tribunal — Legal representatives of a deceased who died in an accident filed complaint and claimed compensation from the appellant — Complaint was allowed — Appellant alleges that National Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint — Since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon on the Claims Tribunal constituted under 1988 Act — Whether FORA had jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred on a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ? — (No).”

                As per the principle of law settled in the aforesaid judgment, the exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon on the Claims Tribunal constituted under 1988 Act and not the District Commission.

8.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is dismissed being not maintainable.  The complainant is at liberty to seek redressal of her grievances before the appropriate Court as per law.
9.         The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission 02.05.2024
	Sd/- (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER