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 :

HON’BLE 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 28^th 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