PUNJAB CIVIL And CONSUMER WELFARE FRONT (REGD.) vs PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

THIS is an appeal filed against order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter for short to be referred as District Forum-I) in Complaint Case No. 387 of 2000; Punjab Civil and Consumer Welfare Front (Regd.), Banur and Another v. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and Another.

THE facts narrated briefly are as under: THE appellant complainant No. 2, Mr. Harkirat Singh Walia, resident of Banur, Distt. Patiala travelled on 5.6.2000 at 8.15 a.m. by bus No. PB-11-No. 0774 from Banur to Chandigarh, copy of Ticket Nos. 535099 and 287185 for Rs. 10/- and Rs. 4/- respectively have been brought on record. THE main grievance of the appellant/complainant No. 2 is that the driver of the aforesaid bus did not stop it on his request at the Tribune Chowk in spite of same being an authorized bus stop. However, it was stopped at Chowk of GMCH, Sector 32, though it was not an authorized bus stop. THE appellants/complainants have further levelled allegations that the staff of the O.Ps. was very rude to him when he complained against not stopping the bus. Further, when he protested, he was beaten up and misbehaved with by the driver and the conductor of the said bus and in the scuffle that occurred, appellant/complainant No. 2''s turban fell off and his cloths got torn. Further, the appellant/complainant No. 2 has averred that he had to take medical help for the injuries sustained by the beatings of the driver and conductor and has prayed for a compensation of Rs. 3 lacs, consequent to the physical suffering and mental agony, which he underwent due to the aforesaid deficient services of the respondents/O.Ps. In reply filed by the respondents/O.Ps. the allegation of misbehaviour by the staff of the bus in question was denied. It was further submitted that the Tribune Chowk is not an authorized stoppage as per Fare Table approved by the Government copy of the which has been brought on record as Annexure O.P. -1. The respondent O.Ps. submitted that on 5.6.2000, some passengers got down at Tribune Chowk on request but the complainant could not, since he was sleeping and after waking up suddenly at the next chowk, he shouted for stopping the bus. The conductor stopped it after crossing the chowk in front of General Hospital. The respondents/O.Ps. alleged that it was rather the complainant, who misbehaved with the staff of the bus for not letting him get down at Tribune Chowk. The allegations of beating, etc. have been denied on the ground that the same were not supported by documentary or medical proof. It was further submitted by the answering O.Ps. that had the injuries, as alleged, by the complainant were sustained by him, he in the normal course would have got his medical examination done from the General Hospital, Sector 32, which was so close to the place he allegedly was beaten. Since, no FIR has been registered against the staff, hence the story has been concocted by the complainants and on an inquiry conducted by the O.Ps. authorities, the complainants could not substantiate their allegations. The report of inquiry was brought on record (Annexure O.P.-2).

In the rejoinder filed by the appellants/complainants, the allegations of the respondents/O.Ps. were denied and it was averred that the complainant is an old man and a heart patient who could not have misbehaved with the bus staff though he verbally protested for not stopping the bus at the authorized stop. It was further submitted that the appellant/complainant No. 2 did not join the inquiry conducted by the O.Ps. since he had no faith in the same.

IN evidence, the appellant/complainant No. 2 filed his affidavit while affidavit of General Manager, Pepsu Road Corporation, Chandigarh Depot and report of inquiry conducted by the respondents/O.Ps. was brought on record by the O.Ps. The District Forum-I, disposed of the complaint with the direction that the General Manager of respondents/O.Ps. should conduct an inquiry to the allegations levelled by the complainant and to act according to the rules.

AGGRIEVED against the order of the District Forum-I, the present appeal has been filed pleading, inter alia, that the District Forum failed to appreciate the facts of the case by holding that the General Manager of the O.Ps.'' department should conduct an inquiry to the allegations made by the complainant and to act according to the rules. The appellants have submitted that this relief was neither prayed for by the appelant nor it falls under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity to be referred as C.P. Act). The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the same is bad in law in view of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the C.P. Act. The District Forum-I, in the event of holding any defect in goods or deficiency in services as per the provisions should have either directed the refund of the price of the defective goods or the deficiency to be removed and grant compensation to the complainant. However, in the instant case, the appellants have contended that by ordering the departmental inquiry by the General Manager of the respondents/O.Ps., who had filed an affidavit denying the allegations of the appellants, the inquiry by such an official would not have been unbiased. The appellants have prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the same to the District Forum-I for consideration afresh keeping in view the evidence led by the respective parties and submissions made thereof. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the O.Ps. and minutely gone through the entire record of the complaint case, grounds of appeal and impugned order appealed against, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of the appellant has merit that the District Forum-I in its order travelled beyond the provisions of C.P. Act and it was not justified in law to order for holding an inquiry by the official of the respondents/O.Ps. when the same was neither prayed for by the appellant nor is provided in the provisions of the C.P. Act under which the complaint was being decided. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies are not authorized to order the holding of departmental inquiries but under the Act they are required to give a finding, regarding defect in goods supplied as defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the C.P. Act or deficiency in services, if any, as envisaged under Section 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act, in a given case and award compensation in case of the proven deficiency. Hence the impugned order passed by the District Forum-I, suffers from being erroneous in law inasmuch as being beyond the scope of the C.P. Act itself. Consequent to the discussion above, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Forum-I is set aside. The complaint case is remanded to District Forum-I for decision according to the provisions of C.P. Act, taking into account material on record. The District Forum-I shall make endeavour to decide the complaint case within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order keeping in view the spirit of the C.P. Act and the factum of the old age of the appellant/complainant No. 2 who is a senior citizen. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum-I on 26.9.2002. Copy of the judgment be supplied to the parties free of charges. Appeal allowed.