B.L. Sood vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 28 November, 2007

  
 
 
 
 
 
 NCDRC
  
 
 
 
 
 







 



 

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 

  New Delhi 

 

  

 

  

 Revision Petition No. 115 of 2006

 

(From the order dated 19.9.2005 passed in Appeal No. 551
of 2002 of the State Commission,   Delhi)

 

  

 

B.L. Sood

 

H.No.1/6332, Street
No.5,

 

 East Rohtash Nagar, Shahdara,

 

Delhi-110
032. 

 

  Petitioner

 

  

 

 Versus

 

  

 

Delhi Transport
Corporation

 

I.P. Estate,   New
  Delhi  Respondent

 

  

 

 BEFORE
:

 

  

 

 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.B.SHAH, PRESIDENT. 

 

 MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. 

 

 MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER. 

 

  

 

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Dikshit,
Advocate.

 

 (Amicus
curiae)

 

  

 

For the Respondent : Mr. Sripal Sain, Advocate.

 

  

 

  

 

 Dated   the  28th November,
 2007 : 

 

   

 

  

 

 O R D
E R 

 



 

 M.B.SHAH,
J. PRESIDENT.

 

  

 



 

 Whether the rude and rough
behaviour by a service provider -
public servant with a senior citizen should be tolerated? Or, whether the
public servants rendering public service are expected to be service -
oriented and to behave in a
reasonable and civilized manner with
fellow citizens who avail of those services? 

 

  

 

 In our view, in a civilized
society, rough
behaviour with a senior citizen or with any person by the employee of service
provider cannot be permitted. They are expected to behave in a civilized manner
and with respect. Once again, we reiterate
that this amounts to deficiency in
service by the service provider. 

 

  

 

 In the present case, the
Complainant is a senior citizen. He
retired as a Assistant Director (General), Postal
Services. He has a very good family background 
his father was a freedom fighter. He boarded a DTC bus on 26.7.1998 at about  1.00 pm from Talkatora
Stadium bus stop for going to Central Secretariat bust stop. When the bus
started, a checking party of the DTC entered into the bus and allegedly found
that the Complainant was not in possession of a ticket. Therefore, the
Complainant was asked to get off the bus; subsequently, he was abused and also manhandled by
the officials of the checking party; and,
thereafter, was imposed a penalty of Rs.20/-. 

 

  

 

 Hence, the Complainant
preferred complaint No.1795 of 1999
before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum (Central),   Delhi. Despite
many opportunities being given to the Opposite Party, the allegations made in
the complaint were not rebutted. The DTC did not bother to reply to the contentions
raised by the Complainant. In this set of circumstances, after considering the
evidence produced by the Complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint
and directed the DTC to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation; Rs.1,000/- as
costs of litigation; and also to refund the sum of Rs.20/- which was recovered
from the Complainant as penalty. 

 

  

 

 Against that order, Appeal
No.551 of 2002 was filed by the DTC before the State Commission,   Delhi. The State
Commission observed that the factum of the bus being
over-crowded and
of the conductor sitting in his seat surrounded by the passengers for
purchasing tickets, was not disputed effectively. The State Commission also accepted the say of the
Complainant that he was holding a coin in his hand for purchase of the ticket;
he was apprehended by the checking staff;
and, was asked to get down the bus. Therefore, the State Commission
accepted the contention of the Complainant that there was deficiency in service.
However, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum
by reducing the amounts
directed to be paid by the DTC to the Complainant to Rs.800/-,
which amount was required to be paid by
the DTC to the Complainant towards the costs imposed by the District Forum for
giving opportunity to the Opposite Parties for remaining present or filing
written version. The Respondent was also directed to refund the penalty of
Rs.20/-.  

 

  

 

  Against
that order, this Revision Petition is filed.
In the Revision Petition even for serving notice on the Respondent, this
Commission was required to pass appropriate orders thrice.  

 

  

 

  From
the say of the Complainant, it appears that the checking party had misbehaved
with him and manhandled a respectable aged person without bothering for his
age. In such a situation, there was no reason for the State Commission to
interfere in appeal with the discretionary order passed by the District Forum,
that too, when a penalty of Rs.2,000/- only was imposed.  

 

  

 

  In
the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the
State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is
restored. The Respondent shall pay the amount as awarded by the District Forum
to the Complainant within a period of four weeks from today. The Respondent
shall also pay costs of this Revision Petition, which is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The Respondent is directed to deposit the amount of
Rs.5,000/- with the Registrar of this Commission. Since Rs.2,500/- has already been paid to the
amicus curiae from the Consumer Legal Aid Account, Registrar is directed to pay
Rs,2,500/- from the amount of Rs.5,000/- which may be deposited by the DTC to
the Complainant after proper verification and deposit the remaining Rs.2,500/-
with the Consumer Legal Aid Account.  

 

  

 

  We
make it clear that it would be open to the DTC to recover the said amount from the
concerned officials, who misbehaved with
the Complainant, as laid
down by the   Apex Court in the
case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta 1994(1) SC
243. The relevant portion is as under: 

 

  

 

The authority empowered to function under a statute while
exercising power discharges public duty; it has to act to observe general
welfare in common good; in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the
political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public
oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the
system; where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala
fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical
harassment and that the officer can no more claim to be under any protective
cover. 

 

  The
Court pertinently held : 

 

It should
further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant
from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are
found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it
proportionately where there are more than one functionaries. 

 

This would be in
consonance with the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) and
(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which are
as under: 

 

  

 

14(1)(d) :  to
pay such amount as may be awarded by it
as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer
due to the negligence of the Opposite Party. 

 

 [provided that the District Forum shall have the power to
grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit]. 

 

(i)               
to provide for adequate costs to parties. 

 

  

 

  For
better administration/governance, the aforesaid law is required to be
implemented so that
the public authorities
exercise, with due courtesy, and consideration, the powers for general welfare and common good.

 

  

 

   Sd/- 

 

.J. 

 

( M.B. SHAH ) 

 

PRESIDENT 

 

  

 


Sd/- 

 

... 

( RAJYALKASHMI RAO )

MEMBER

Sd/-

…

( ANUPAM DASGUPTA )

MEMBER