Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/193/2022

Ashok Kumar Parjapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Transport Department Chandigarh - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/193/2022
Date of Institution	:	14.2.2022
Date of Decision	:	12/04/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Prajapat, resident of village Mohla, District Hisar (Haryana) 125042.

… Complainant(s)

V E R S U S

The Director, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking Industrial  Area Phase-1, Near Sub Divisional Magistrate (East) office, Chandigarh 160002.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant  in person
	:	Dr. Shri Ram Govt. Pleader for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the Sh. Ashok Kumar Prajapat complainant against the opposite party  (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant travelled in bus No.CH01GA5367 of the OP from Derabassi (Punjab) to Zirakpur (Punjab) by paying Rs.20/- as fare, which was charged by the conductor and the said ticket has also been annexed as Annexure-1 though  the fare for the said journey was Rs.10/-  but the OP had charged Rs.10/- in excess i.e. total Rs.20/- from the complainant. In this manner the OP has been looting the passengers. Even as per the notification dated 30.6.2020 Annexure-2 issued by the Punjab Government the minimum fare of Rs.10/- was fixed and in his manner the fare which was to be charged from the passengers for the said journey i.e. from Derabassi to Zirakpur  is only Rs.10/- . Thereafter the complainant made a complaint to the official of the OP but till the date of filing the instant complaint no response was given by the OP. It is further alleged that the OP is openly violating the rules by not making complaint box and telephone number available in the bus and in addition to that has also violated the Central rules. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and also that the complainant is habitual of filing false complaint against the OP. On merit it is alleged that all non-AC buses were plying in tricity with the consent of neighbouring state with flat rate  of Rs.20/- per ticket  and it was made mandatory that the buses would run with 50% capacity  only as per order No. 13180-HIII(5)/2020/5087 dated 18.5.2020 issued by the office Hon’ble Advisor to Administrator, U.T-cum-Chairperson, State Executive Committee of State Disaster Management Authority, U.T., Chandigarh due to COVID 19. It is further alleged that since minimum fare of Rs.20/- was fixed as per order issued vide Annexure OP-1 dated 18.5.2020, the same was also charged from all the passenger. The complaint is false and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In replication, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and learned Govt. Pleader for the OP and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that on the relevant date i.e. 1.10.2020 the complainant had travelled in bus No.CH01GA5367 of OP and fare of Rs.20/- charged  from the complainant as is also evident from copy of ticket available on record as
      Annexure-1, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP has charged excess fare from the complainant against the rule and the same amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for and as is the case of the complainant or the OP had charged minimum fare of Rs.20/- from the complainant for the journey performed by the complainant on the relevant date as per order Annexure OP-1 and the complaint of the complainant being false liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Annexure -2 Copy of notification dated 30.6.2020 having been relied upon by the complainant indicates that the minimum fare shall be charged at the rate of Rs.10/- for the journey performed in the state of Punjab. At the same time Annexure OP-1 is the copy of order dated 18.5.2020 issued by the  Hon’ble Administrator of  U.T., Chandigarh, clearly indicating that as per Hon’ble Governor of Punjab and Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh in the capacity of Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority after intensive  consultation with all stakeholders including medical experts passed the order under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 in the light of COVID 19 and as per  clause Xix  the minimum fare with flat rate of Rs.20/- per ticket was ordered to be charged and all non-AC buses operated in tricity with the consent of neighbouring state. The relevant portion of the order is as under:-

“Xix. All non-AC buses will be operated in tri-city with the consent of the neighbouring states. There will be a flat rate of Rs.20 per ticket. The buses will run with 50% capacity only and necessary social distancing norms will be followed.”

 

3. Thus, one thing is clear from the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh that due to COVID 19, all non AC buses were ordered to be operated in tricity with the consent of the neighbouring states with further direction that there will be flat rate of Rs.20/- per ticket and the buses will run with 50% capacity only and necessary social distancing norm will also be followed.
4. In the case in hand  it is admitted case of parties that in the month of October 2020 COVID 19 was in full swing and due to that only buses were ordered to be operated with 50% capacity in the tricity and further when it has come on record that it was ordered vide notification OP-1 which was issued with the consent of the neighbouring states that flat rate of Rs.20/- per ticket was fixed which was duly charged by the conductor of the bus of the OP from the complainant,  hence, in our opinion there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 12/04/2023 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member