STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition challenges the order dated 20.04.2007 of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeals No. 208 and 236 of 2004. By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal No. 208 of 2004 filed by the Respondent/complainant and enhanced the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra (in short, 'the District Forum') in the Respondent's complaint from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 85,000/- and further awarded the cost of Rs. 2000/- to the Respondent/complainant. The appeal filed by the present Petitioner (State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.) was dismissed.

(2.) The Respondent had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners in not properly maintaining the culvert over which the passenger bus owned by the Respondent/complainant used to ply and met with the accident on 19.03.2002 because of sudden collapse of a part of the said culvert, resulting in considerable damage to the bus and injuries to several passengers in the bus. The Petitioners resisted the complaint on the grounds that there was no cause of action against the Petitioners, the complaint was not maintainable and the District Forum had no jurisdiction. The Petitioner also pleaded that the bus met with the accident not because of any deficiency in maintaining the culvert but because of over-speeding and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record, the District Forum held that the complainant was a "consumer" within the meaning of the term under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'), inasmuch as he regularly paid road tax to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and was thus entitled to the "service" of proper maintenance of the roads and culverts that he used for plying the bus in question, through which he earned his livelihood by means of self-employment. Accordingly, the District Forum also held that the complaint filed by the Respondent was maintainable and that the District Forum had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. Finally, the District Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by way of compensation to the Respondent/complainant and directed the Petitioner 1 to pay the sum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the amount was to attract interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint (17.03.2003) till realisation of the amount.

(3.) Both the sides challenged this order in respective appeals before the State Commission, with the result noticed above.