V.P. SHARMA Vs. HARYANA ROADWAYS & 2 ORS. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, OR FLYING SQUAD OFFICER, HARYANA ROADWAYS ISBT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.07.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 482 of 2011 V.P. Sharma Vs. Haryana Roadways & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner is a practicing lawyer and during the intervening night of 28/29.09.2007, he boarded a Haryana roadways Bus No. HR-66-2932 at about 1:20 a.m. from ISBT, Delhi to Chandigarh. He was allotted the seat No. 23. On 29.09.2007, he was scheduled to attend an important hearing in the Shimla High Court at 10:00 a.m. The bus started from ISBT Delhi and when it reached Singhu Border, Delhi, there was breakdown and it stopped there. Despite this the conductor & driver of the bus did not bother and they did not contact higher authorities of Haryana Roadways as was expected from them. From their conduct it appeared that the breakdown of the bus was deliberate and willful. The complainant as well as other passengers on request of doing the needful misbehaved with them and left them at isolated place. Frustrated, the complainant gave a call to police control room at No. 100 and the complaint was recorded dated 29.09.2007. The conductor and driver of the bus left the place leaving the passengers at the spot. There was no solution of the problem insight and complainant was forced to board another bus at 5:00 A.M. In the process the complainant suffered lot of mental torture and physical strain and missed an important hearing in the High Court at Shimla, as he could not reach in time. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that ticket numbers mentioned in the complaint does not tally with the voucher of concerned bus. It was further submitted that due to break-down of bus, every passenger was boarded in the next coming bus on the same route and mechanic was called for repairs of the bus. Complaint was time barred. It was further submitted that complainant's version is self-contradictory which cannot be relied that he took another bus at 5 p.m. and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the respondent finally at admission stage and perused record.