Haryana

StateCommission

A/226/2021

ASHOK KUMAR PARJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAILWAY STATION MASTER JIND - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

Date of Institution: 27.09.2021

  Date of final hearing:08.08.2022

Date of Pronouncement:08.08.2022

 

 

First Appeal No.226 of 2021

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar (Haryana)-125042.

…..Appellant

Shri Ashok Kumar, Parjapat, appellant in person

 

Versus

 

1.      Railway Station Master, Jind Junction, Jind-126102.

2.      Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt-133001.

3.      Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

…..Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. S.C. Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Ashok Parjapat, appellant in person.

 

                                                 ORDER

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Mr. Ashok Parjapat-complainant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 07.04.2021, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind (In short “District Commission”) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant (Ashok Parjapat) was dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that on 12.06.2017 he purchased a railway ticket worth Rs.95/- from Jind Junction for going to Malout (Punjab). Further alleged that when he reached the platform, he became uncomfortable with the smell of smoking following which he searched about the person who was smoking at the public place and finally found that the person who was smoking was none other than a Constable in Railway Police Force at Jind. Thereafter, he informed about this to a Railway Officer at Station, who challaned the said constable and fined for a sum of Rs.200/-. He further alleged that while travelling the scene was no different, in the compartment many passengers were smoking as there was no railway official present to check them. Thereafter, when the train reached at Jakhal Junction, some uniform wearing persons boarded the train and complainant lodged his protest about the incident of smoking but they ignored his request. Finally, he also moved a complaint on 01.09.2017 to the respondents, but all in vain and at last he filed this complaint before learned District Commission.

3.                The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing its written reply before the District Commission. While taking the preliminary objection it has been alleged that there was no cause of action with complainant to file the present complaint. Objections about complainant having no locus standi, maintainability of complaint,   the same being bad for non-joinder of necessary party and it being false and frivolous etc. were also raised and request for dismissal of the complaint was raised.

4.                On merits, it was submitted that smoking by a person indirectly affects other persons in a very limited periphery especially at an open place like platform, therefore allegations of complainant regarding congestion, pain and insecurity are false and exaggeration of facts. Further, it was submitted that the defaulting HC Pritam Singh was promptly fined Rs.200/- at the spot for smoking by the superior officer of RPF on the complaint of complainant. Besides it, there was no complaint of smoking in the train during the journey of the complainant. It was also denied that the complainant was taunted. No name or identity of any person specially indulging in to any such act or smoking worth action was received by the opposite parties. It was further submitted that RPF Jind started investigation on 01.09.2017, on the complaint of complainant and visited the village of complainant to record his statement where it was realized that complainant was not residing there in the said village Mohla rather he merely used to visit there rarely and when contacted telephonically then he told that he lives at Panchkula but refused to disclose his address and also did not join the investigation including recording his statement in this regard. Thereafter the matter was investigated and report was sent to the Head Office without statement of complainant and report to higher Railway Officers at Dehli. It was further submitted that entire instance goes to show that the sole aim of complainant was to harass and defame RPF while sitting at home without taking any pains to redress his own grievance. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.             

5.               After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind dismissed the complaint vide order dated 07.04.2021.

6.               Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.               The argument has been advanced by Mr. Ashok Parjapat, appellant, who appeared in person before this Commission. With his kind assistance the entire appeal had been properly perused and examined.

8.               During the course of arguments before this Commission, the appellant (original complainant) has argued that due to smoking by someone at platform of Railway Station, Jind, he suffered congestion, pain and injury to his health as well as he felt ashamed before his co-passengers when no strict action was taken by the railway authorities against culprit, who himself happened to be the employee of railway force itself. Appellant further argued that the act and conduct of respondents clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part and prayed that impugned order dated 07.04.2021, passed by learned District Commission, Jind be set-aside and appeal be allowed.

9.                It is not disputed that on 12.06.2017 the appellant purchased a railway ticket of Rs.95/- from Jind Junction for going to Malout (Punjab) and on reaching platform, he became uncomfortable due to stink of smoking, follow of which on search it was found that the smoker himself was none other than a constable in Railway Police Force, Jind. It is also not disputed that on his information about the incident to a Railway Officer at Jind Station, the offender was challaned for a sum of Rs.200/- under the Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of trade, Products, Supply and Distribution, Act 34 of 2003 for smoking at public place. This shows that the authorities have done their duty promptly and as such, we do not see any negligence on the part of respondents. Moreover, the Govt. authorities such like Railways never permit a vendor to sell tobacco product in a public place and also do not promote or protect any smoker in their territory. So far as complainant having found the similar surroundings in the train, complainant itself during his journey is concerned, he could not name any particular individual who was flouting the directions in this regard. The learned District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The respondents are not responsible for any kind of negligence or deficiency in service and as such, while dismissing the complaint, no illegality committed by the learned District Commission, Jind. Resultantly, present appeal is being devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limini.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this order.

 

 

08^th August, 2022    S.C Kaushik                                                 S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

                                    Addl. Bench                                                 Addl. Bench            

 

R.K