State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karam Chand vs Hrtc & Ors. on 8 January, 2009
H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. --- FIRST APPEAL NO.202/2008. DATE OF DECISION: 8.1.2009. In the matter of: Shri Karam Chand son of late Shri Sarnu Ram, resident of No.5, Oak Villa, Jakhoo, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. Appellant. Versus 1. HRTC, through its Managing Director, Shimla- 171 003 (HP). 2. Regional Manager, HRTC, Depot, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. 3. Conductor of Bus No.HP 25A-0237, HRTC Depot, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. (Name to be disclosed by Res. No.1 & 2.) Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President. Honble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Virender Sharma, Advocate, For respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate, For respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, in Complaint No.188/2007 which was dismissed on 7.1.2008 by means of impugned order.
2. Appellant is a senior citizen aged 69 years and was having HRTC Smart Card. On 12.8.2006, he claims to have boarded the bus at 9.00 P.M. at Delhi by pass for Shimla. On payment of Rs.175/-, he was issued the requisite ticket. After having purchased the ticket, appellant asked for seat, when it was held out by respondent No.3 to make his seat on his bag. This was not possible because there was some breakable item in it.
This resulted in appellants travelling in standing position. However, when the bus reached Parwanoo, according to the appellant, he could get a seat. This resulted in his having suffered pain in his back bone. This matter was complained by the appellant to the Transport Minister, Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 25.8.2006. He has mentioned about the physical exertion and harassment as a result of inconvenience caused to him by the act of the respondents but without any result. Another representation was also made by him to the Secretary (Transport) and General Manager of respondent No.1 on 9.1.2007. In response to this letter, appellant was informed that necessary warning would be issued to the concerned Conductor. This resulted in filing of the complaint which has been dismissed.
3. Fact remains that looking to the age and grievance of the appellant, respondents 1 & 2 should have taken a more pragmatic and reasonable view. There is nothing on record placed on behalf of the respondents to suggest that despite having been put to notice that there is no vacant seat available which can be provided to the appellant, the latter persisted to travel as a standing passenger. That being the position, the stand taken on behalf of the respondents that the appellant was well aware regarding non availability of the seat when he boarded the same at by-pass at Delhi on way to Shimla, does not appear to be correct.
4. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 2 submitted that in his complaint to the authorities of respondent No.1, appellant had asked for being compensated for inconvenience etc. caused to him but not for inflicting any major punishment upon the bus conductor and had also at the same time prayed for his being warned.
5. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the interest of justice will be well served if respondents 1 & 2 are directed to compensate the appellant in the sum of Rs.500/-. Ordered accordingly.
6. No other point was urged.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal, it is ordered that respondents 1 & 2 shall remit Rs.500/- by or before 31.1.2009 to the appellant, failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 2.7.2007 till the date of the amount being remitted by respondents 1 & 2 to the appellant. So far order against respondent No.3 is concerned, it is upheld.
Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect authenticated copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.
Shimla, January 8, 2009.
( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.) President ( Saroj Sharma ) /BS/ Member.