Failure To Inform Change In Bus Root And Process Refund, Shimla District Commission Holds Redbus And Himachal Road Transport Commission Liable

Brief Facts:

Shaurya Vir Singh Pathania (“Complainant”), who works as an Assistant Professor at IDOL, Chandigarh University, Mohali, Punjab, visited Shimla to meet his parents. He urgently needed to return to Chandigarh for a meeting scheduled in his office. Due to a roadblock near Chakki Mord Parwanoo HP, the buses to Chandigarh were diverted via an alternative route through Nahan. The Complainant made an online booking for a Himsuta Volvo Bus departing from ISBT Shimla via Redbus.

The Complainant received a ticket with PNR No. and was assigned seat No. 12. On 06.08.2023, at 1:30 P.M., the Complainant, along with his luggage, arrived at ISBT to board the bus. To his surprise, the conductor informed him that the bus would not go to Chandigarh as the route had been changed. The Complainant contacted the Regional Manager, expressing concern that passengers were not informed of the route change and demanded a refund for their tickets. The Regional Manager provided no satisfactory explanation for the route alteration.

As a result of the unilateral decision by the Himachal Road Transport Commission (HRTC) and Redbus not to ply the bus to Chandigarh, the Complainant, and other ticket holders, experienced inconvenience and felt cheated and harassed. Despite writing an email to HRTC and Redbus detailing his grievances and seeking a timely resolution, the Complainant received no response. Furthermore, HRTC failed to refund the ticket amount of Rs. 430.50/- to the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against HRTC and Redbus. HRTC and Redbus didn't appear before the District Commission.

The decision of the District Commission:

The District Commission held that the Complainant had a genuine need to travel to Chandigarh for an urgent office meeting. The District Commission noted that the supporting evidence demonstrating the booking and the email communication strengthened the Complainant's case.

Given the absence of any rebuttal from HRTC and Redbus, the District Commission was inclined to believe the Complainant's version of events. Therefore, the District Commission held HRTC and Redbus liable for deficiency in services. Consequently, the District Commission directed HRTC and Redbus to compensate the Complainant jointly and severally with a lump-sum amount of Rs. 5,000/-, covering the ticket amount, mental harassment, and litigation charges incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Shaurya Vir Singh Pathania vs Himachal Road Transport Commission, Office at Old Bus Stand, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P and Anr.

Case Number: 241/2023