STATE OF HARYANA vs Sandeep Singh

IN this appeal filed by the State of Haryana through its Secretary, Transport, the order of the District Forum, Kurukshetra has been challenged on the ground, that the learned District Forum should not have accepted the complaint for directing the Haryana Roadways to issue concessional bus pass to the complainant, as also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,400/- as extra expenses incurred by the complainant, Rs. 500/- as compensation and Rs. 250/- as costs.

THE complainant-respondent is a minor and a student of Aggarsain Public School, Kurukshetra. He applied to the Haryana Roadways for concessional student-bus pass, from Ladwa to Kurukshetra on 2nd of August, 1993. Though the application had been verified by the School Authorities, yet the General Manager, Haryana Roadways rejected the same. Since the student-concessional bus pass, was not issued to the complainant he had to commute from Ladwa to Kurukshetra by spending Rs. 2,500/- extra. Feeling aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum, Kurukshetra for the redressal of his grievance. In reply to the notice, the appellant-Haryana Roadways pleaded that the General Manager was not competent to issue the concessional student-bus pass directly to the complainant. But the learned District Forum after going through the evidence on the record, allowed the complaint and directed the Haryana Roadways to compensate the complainant by paying Rs. 2,400/-, as the complainant had spent Rs. five per ticket i.e., about Rs. 200/- per month for 13 months.

In the appeal before us, learned Deputy Advocate General has raised number of contentions, but each one of them is without any basis. Firstly, it has been contended that no application whatsoever for the issuance of concessional pass was ever received by the appellant. Secondly, the evidence produced by the complainant, that the application was duly submitted to the appellant, was forged one. Thirdly, the application was not forwarded by the Principal of the School, as such, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways could not grant the same. Fourthly, that the complainant was not a consumer, therefore, no right of the complainant was adversely affected. Finally, it was also alleged that the complainant was not resident of House No. 419/8 in Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra. However, the learned Deputy Advocate General has not been able to substantiate any of his contentions even by a prima facie evidence. Therefore, the case made out in the complaint has rightly been agreed to by the learned District Forum. Thus the directions issued by the learned District Forum deserve to be upheld. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.