BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 186 of 2012
Date of Institution : 7.9.2012
Date of Order : 19.9.2016.
Amar D.Kamra Advocate, aged 32 years son of Sh.Desh Raj Kamra, r/o Madh Colony, Tohana Road, Ratia Distt.Fatehabad.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Haryana Roadways Fatehabad (Govt. of Haryana) through its General Manager, Fatehabad Depot, Bus Stand Fatehabad.
- Satish Kumar Driver Bus no.HR62A-0503/HR62A-0505 Haryana Roadways Fatehabad (Bus Route Sirsa to Delhi).
- Sanjay Kumar Conductor No.8, Bus No.HR62A-0503/HR 62A-0505 Haryana Roadways Fatehabad (Bus Route Sirsa to Delhi).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Harish Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Ajay Kumar, Govt. Pleader for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.R.Sheoran, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh.B.L.Narula, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief, is that on 9.7.2012 at about 10.20 a.m., he alongwith his father-in-law Sh.Ram Chand r/o Tosham boarded in the bus at Bus Stand Sirsa. Inside the bus, number was written as HR62A-0503 and outside on the number plate, the number was written as HR62A-0505. The conductor of bus issued two passenger tickets for journey from Sirsa to Fatehabad to the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant tried to occupy the seat, the driver directed him to leave the seat for another person, who was known to driver and was going to Delhi. The Driver scolded the complainant with red eyes and compelled him to leave the seat against the rules and law and the Conductor contrary to the rules refused to give the complaint book to the complainant. At about 11.20 a.m., complainant moved an application to op no.1 but no action has been taken. Hence, the present complaint
2. Opposite party no.1 contested the case by filing its separate reply. It is pleaded that opposite parties no.2 and 3 were deputed on the said bus and were provided route board from the Yard Master and the same was affixed and available in the bus. Yard Master mentioned the bus number in front and back side of the bus and there was no change in the bus number. The allegations leveled against the Ops no.2 and 3 are false and frivolous and baseless. The complainant has not stated that how many passengers were traveling in the said bus on that day.
3. Opposite parties no.2 and 3 in their separate reply have also pleaded the similar version as stated by Op no.1 and denied the allegations of the complainant in toto. They have also pleaded that in the Bus, there were 52 seats. In case of excess passengers, it is not possible for the driver and conductor to provide seat.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.PA-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.P1-copy of order dt. 25.11.2013 passed by Op no.1; Ex.P2-copy of complaint u/s 349/350/351/352/166/34 IPC; Ex.P3 to Ex.P8 certified copies of various documents produced in the court of ACJM, Sirsa in complaint case no.337-1/2012/2014; whereas, the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.RW1/A- supporting affidavit of Satish Kumar op no.2; Ex.R1-affidavit of Balvinder Singh, Clerk of Op no.1; Ex.R2-Crew/Vehicles scheduling statement of dt. 9th July 2012.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
6. The complainant in support of his allegations has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PA wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file order dated 25.11.2013 passed by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Fatehabad in the departmental inquiry conducted against ops No.2 & 3 as Ex.P1 whereby the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties No.2 & 3 were found to be correct and accordingly one increment of the driver was stopped whereas probation period of the conductor for six months was extended. As the allegations of the complainant that he was misbehaved by the opposite parties No.2 & 3 during his travelling from Sirsa to Fatehabad have been found correct by opposite party no.1 and ops Nos. 2 & 3 have been penalized for the same and complainant has proved deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant, so complaint against ops No.2 & 3 deserves acceptance. However, complaint qua no.1 deserves dismissal as no.1 is not personally liable for the act and conduct of ops No.2 & 3. The complainant has failed to prove on record that bus number on the number plates was different.
7. Keeping in view the facts that ops no.2 & 3 have already been penalized by their department for their above said wrong act and a criminal complaint has also been filed against them by the complainant which is pending in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that end of justice would be met if the ops No.2 & 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rs.500/- each) to the complainant as compensation. Thus, we partly accept the present complaint qua ops No.2 & 3 and direct them to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rs.500/- each) to the complainant within a period of one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against them. However, complaint qua op no.1 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:19.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
