State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh.Gamdoor Singh vs Sh. Gulzara Singh & Ors. on 3 June, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1064 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 13.07.2011.
Date of Decision: 03.06.2014.
Sh.Gamdoor Singh S/o Sh.Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Tandiayan
(Special Power of Attorney of Ranjit Singh), Registered Owner of Mini
Bus No.PB-31-A-2982), District Mansa.
....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Sh. Gulzara Singh S/o Sh. Joginder Singh S/o Sh. Mal Singh
2. Kulwinder Singh S/o Sh. Major Singh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
3. Janak Singh S/o Sh. Jagir Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh
4. Teja Singh S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh S/o Sh. Mal Singh
5. Amrik Singh S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh S/o Sh. Kaur Singh
6. Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh. Nand Singh S/o Sh. Sarwan Singh
7. Jaskaran Singh S/o Sh.Jagrup Singh S/o Sh.Kaur Singh
8. Lakha Singh S/o Sh.Bogh Singh S/o Sh. Mengal Singh
9. Jeet Singh S/o Sh. Hazur Singh S/o Sh. Kunda Singh
10. Jarnail Singh S/o Sh. Bachan Singh S/o Sh.Gurditta Singh
11. Harbans Singh S/o Sh.Dalip Singh S/o Sh.Sewa Singh
All residents of village Bhalai Kay, District Mansa.
.....Respondents/Complainants.
12 District Transport Officer, Mansa.
.....Performa Respondent/Opposite party No.2.
First Appeal against order dated
30.05.2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Mansa.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 2Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. G.S. Bawa, Advocate.
For respondent No.1&3-11: None.
For respondent No.2 : Exparte.
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant/opposite party No.1, Gamdoor Singh (hereinafter referred to as, "opposite party No.1") has directed this appeal against the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa (in short, "the District Forum"), vide which, by accepting the complaint filed by respondents no.1 to 11/complainants (hereinafter referred to as, "the complainants"), the directions were issued to the appellant as contained therein, besides payment of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. The complainants averred in the complaint that they are residents of Village Bhalai Kay and the Mini Bus of opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh has been operating on route permit No.77 at the above route with the time schedule from 7.00 a.m., 7.30 a.m., 8.15 a.m. and 9.00 a.m. from village Bhalai Kay to Mansa. The school children of the village go to their school through the above said bus. Opposite party no.1 deliberately changed the schedule of the timings of bus No.PB-31-A-2982 at 9.30 a.m. and the schedule of time of second bus No.1283 at 10.30 a.m., which has caused inconvenience and harassment to the school children and the residents of the village. The school children were compelled to tread 6 kmts. on foot to reach their school. Opposite party no.1 exorbitantly charged the fare of Rs.8/- for 6 kmts. distance, whereas he was legally entitled to charge Rs.4/- for above distance only. The fare First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 3 determined by the authorities for the bus is Rs.14/- at the above route, but opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh forcibly charged it @ Rs.18/-. He was causing loss and harassment to the complainants and other residents of the village thereby. Complaints were moved to the authorities in this regard, but to no effect. The complainants have alleged that they suffered loss and damages of Rs.1 lac. They have prayed in this complaint that the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1 lac to them.
3. On service of notice, opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh filed his written version, raising legal objections that the complainants are not his consumers. Opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh is not owner of any such bus nor he was permit holder therefor. The complaint has been filed on wrong premises. It was not alleged in the complaint that the complainants travelled ion the bus and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh denied that he is operator of the alleged buses and has intentionally changed the time for causing inconvenience and loss to the consumers. It was pleaded that the buses still ply on the fixed route at the fixed time according to rules and regulations. It was denied that the opposite party no.1 ever charged the fare excessively, as contained in the complaint. Opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh controverted the allegations of the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Opposite party no.2-District Transport Officer, Mansa filed separate reply before the District Forum to the complaint to the effect the complainants have not taken permission from the District Forum and hence the complaint merits dismissal. Complainants have no locus standi and they are not consumers. On merits, it was pleaded that the buses are operated according to scheduled time table and he never received any such complaint regarding late plying of buses. Opposite party no.2 denied First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 4 the averments of the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove their case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of Babu Singh Ex.O-1, tickets Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-7, affidavit of Sukhpal Singh Ex.O-8, complaint filed before the Transport Officer, Mansa by the residents of village Bhalai Kay Ex.O-9 and the undertaking of opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh filed before the District Transport Officer, Mansa Ex.O-10, affidavit of Amrik Singh Ex.O-11, affidavit of Jaskaran Singh Ex.O-12 and thereafter, complainants closed the evidence.
6. To refute this evidence, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Gamdoor Singh Ex.OP-1, Fare Table Ex.OP-2 issued by Additional Distt. Transport Officer, Mansa and Time Table issued by Secy. Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda Ex.OP-3. Photostat copy of agreement dated 14.06.2006 executed by Randhir Singh S/o Dalip Singh in favour of Gamdoor Singh, opposite party no.1 is also placed on record along with Special Power of Attorney executed by Ranjit Singh in favour of Gamdoor Singh dated 14.06.2006.
7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the learned District Forum granted the complaint of the complainants and passed the directions as contained therein, besides Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30.05.2011, the opposite party no.1 has carried this appeal against the same before this Commission.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length as none put in appearance for respondents no.1, 3 to 11 and respondent no.2 was set exparte in this case. We have also examined the record in this case.
First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 5
9. The first argument raised before us by opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh, now the appellant, is that provisions of Section 66, 72, 86, 94 and 192 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have not been considered by the District Forum in this case. That opposite party no.1 is not owner of the alleged buses nor holds any route permit therefor. The grievance of the parties against the route permit can be duly met with under the mechanism as established under the Motor Vehicles Act. Much emphasis has been laid on this point by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 on the law laid down in "Malappuram District Private Bus Operators Association, Manjeri & Anr. Vs. M.P. Mohan & Ors.", AIR 2000 Kerala 192. The pith of the submission of the counsel for appellant is that when the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded u/s 94 of Motor Vehicles Act, therefore, this complaint is not maintainable. Only the Regional Transport Authority is competent to fix the fares for the bus routes. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums would have no jurisdiction to deal with fixation of fare stage of a stage carriage. The bus passenger is not a consumer as held in this authority. Since none put in appearance on behalf of the complainants to rebut this argument, therefore, we are left with the record of the case to determine the controversy only. Ex.O-1 is the affidavit of Babu Singh in support of the averments set out in the complaint. Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-7 are the tickets of Puneet Bus Service, Regd. Mansa. Ex.O-8 is the affidavit of Sukhpal Singh on behalf of the complainants. Ex.O-9 is the copy of the complaint submitted to the District Transport Officer, Mansa for charging fares arbitrarily by the buses. Ex.O-10 is the undertaking given by opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh regarding his readiness for survey of his route permit. Ex.O-11 is the affidavit of Amrik Singh on behalf of the complainants. As against it, Gamdoor Singh opposite party no.1 has filed First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 6 his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 on the record to rebut the allegations of the complainants. Ex.OP-2 is the fare table fixed by Addl. Distt. Transport Officer, Mansa and Ex.OP-3 is the Time Table fixed by the authorities brought on the file. The photostat copy of the agreement dated 14.06.2006 and photostat copy of power of attorney dated 14.06.2006 have been placed on record to the effect that Gamdoor Singh purchased the route permit from original permit holder Ranjit Singh of the buses, numbers whereof have been set out therein.
10. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 strongly contended before us that the complainants are not the consumers, at all nor it is specifically stated by them. There is no deposition sworn by them in their affidavits that they themselves travelled through the above buses. This point has been examined by us along with the record of the case, but we do not find force in it. The gravamen of the pleadings of the complainants is that the villagers traveled through buses in question en mass and they have denied that they never travelled through the buses after taking the tickets. On the other hand, the complainants have placed on record the tickets Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-7. These documents negative the contention of the opposite parties that the complainants are not themselves consumers. If the complainants are not consumers, then how they seized upon these tickets remained inexplicable by the opposite parties before us. Since the tickets of the buses for traveling have been produced by the complainants vide Ex.O-2 to Ex.O-7, therefore, they are ipso-facto sufficient to prove this fact that they are consumers in the above buses, who commuted through the above buses. The complainants have alleged in their affidavits adduced on the record that the entire villagers also travelled through these buses, including the school children of the people of the village. It cannot be said that the complainants are not consumers when First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 7 they have produced the tickets of the fare of these buses on the record. The submission of the opposite parties that the bus passenger is not a consumer as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High court in Malappuram District Private Bus Operators Association's case (supra) is distinguishable from the facts in question. Herein, the complainants have produced the tickets of the buses on the record, meaning thereby that they hired the services of the operators of the bus by making payment therefor, therefore, they will be covered within the definition of consumer as per section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. On the basis of the above tickets which have not been disputed by opposite party no.1, we have come to this clear conclusion that the complainant hired the services of the buses and travelled therein and proved the bus tickets on the record and they are, thus, proved to be consumers in our view. When a person travelling at airline is a consumer, then why a bus commuter is not a consumer, has not been explained by the appellant to us.
11. The next limb of the arguments of the appellant is that the appellant/opposite party no.1 is not proved to be an operator of the buses. Much emphasis has been laid on this point during the course of arguments while placing reliance on Motor Vehicles Act's provisions by opposite party no.1. The agreement executed between the operator and opposite party no.1 has been placed on the record which is dated 14.06.2006 along with copy of special power of attorney favour of opposite party no.1 dated 14.06.2006. From the perusal of agreement and deed of special power of attorney, we have come to this conclusion that it was opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh, who actually operated these buses on the basis of above agreement and special power of attorney executed in his favour on the above route. The consumer is not supposed to know about the ownership or other title, interest or other documents of First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 8 the operator of the bus, when he hired the bus for the purpose of travelling by making payment thereof. Consequently, on the basis of agreement dated 14.06.2006 and special power of attorney document on the record, we have come to the firm conclusion that it is proved on record that the complainant hired the services of opposite party no.1 Gamdoor Singh by making payment for travelling through the buses.
12. Learned District Forum has rightly relied upon the law laid down in "Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta", 1993 (III) CPJ-7 (SC) to the effect that a Govt. or semi-Govt. body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service. The bus fare has been fixed according to kilometers' distance vide Ex.OP-2 placed on the record. The service provider, who is opposite party no.1, is not entitled to charge more than the fare than fixed by the authorities for it under the rules and regulations. The District Forum rather observed in the impugned order that the opposite party Gamdoor Singh produced a false affidavit before it for which, it proceeded separately against him. Opposite party no.2 has taken the stand that no such complaint has been received by the authority about immoderate charging of fare. On the other hand, the complaint was moved to District Transport officer, Mansa by the residents of the village regarding the excessive charging of fare which is Ex.O-9 on the record by opposite party no.1. This belies the stand taken by the opposite party no.1 on the record. The above referred discussion and perusal of the evidence on the record leads us to this conclusion that the District Forum has committed no illegality in passing the direction about charging the fares as actually fixed by the Transport Authority, for travelling in between Bhalai Kay and Mansa. So far as the direction of the District Forum to ply the buses according to time schedule is concerned, this matter is left to the First Appeal No.1064 of 2011 9 authorities concerned as the authorities concerned fix the schedule and the time for operating the buses under rules and regulations. We do not find any ground to interfere with the amount of compensation and litigation expenses as awarded to the complainants by the District Forum in this case.
13. In view of above discussion, the appeal is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs and resultantly, the impugned order is affirmed and upheld in this case.
14. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.7,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondents no.1 to 11/complainants in equal shares way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellants. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to the complainants within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order.
15. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.06.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER June 03, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)