NCDRC Orders Haryana Transport Department To Pay Compensation For Its Failure To Prevent Smoking Inside Public Buses

Brief Facts:

Mr Ashok Kumar Prajapat (“Complainant”) availed services of the public buses run by the Haryana State Transport. During his travel, he witnessed smoking by the driver and the conductor. Aggrieved, he filed a consumer complaint against the Director, General State Transport, Haryana (“Petitioner”) for their alleged failure to prevent smoking in public transport buses and overcharging for bus fares and litter burning in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (“District Commission”). The complainant also marked the Haryana Health Department as the opposite party in the complaint.

In response, the petitioner argued that the complainant did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complaints should fall under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (“COTPA Act, 2003”). Moreover, the petitioner contended that an ample number of steps were taken to prevent smoking and penalize offenders under the COTPA Act, 2003.

The District Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, (“State Commission”). The State Commission partly accepted the appeal, ordering the petitioner to pay compensation and litigation costs. As a result, the petitioner challenged the order of the State Commission by filing a revision petition in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”).

Observations by the Commission:

The NCDRC partly agreed with the petitioner’s contention. It emphasized that Consumer Commissions must follow the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act when dealing with complaints. These complaints should be treated as consumer disputes rather than public interest litigations. The complainant used the petitioner's services by purchasing tickets for bus journeys, making him a consumer in relation to the petitioner (State Transport Department). However, the complainant did not receive any services from the Health Department of the Government of Haryana (“Health Department”), so he is not a consumer in relation to the Health Department.

The NCDRC also clarified that the law prohibits smoking in public places, including buses operated by the petitioner. When a passenger like the complainant buys a ticket for such bus journeys, they expect a smoke-free environment. Therefore, if any driver, conductor, or co-passenger in such buses smokes, it's considered a deficiency in service. In this case, it was proven that the buses the complainant travelled on had smoking drivers/conductors, resulting in a deficient service for the complainant.

Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to take appropriate actions within 2 months of the order to ensure the menace of smoking by drivers, conductors and co-passengers in its buses. It was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 along with Rs. 3,000 as litigation costs to each complainant in different complaints against it.

Case Title: Director, General State Transport Haryana & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Prajapat

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 567 Of 2022

Advocate for the petitioner: Mr. Alok Sangwan along with Mr. Rajat Sangwan and Mr. Vaibhav Yadav

Advocate for the respondent: For respondent-1 - in person and For Respondent 2 - Mr Hemant Gupta, Mr Vineet Jain and Mr Shivang Jain

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View