Back
Chidambara Selvan vs : Quashes Rs.30K
No Human Rights Angle in Bus Ticket Spat, Rules
The has a of Rs.30,000 passed by the ( ) against a bus crew member, holding that the passenger's grievance was essentially a and not a . The Division Bench of Justices M. Dhandapani and N. Dilip Kumar allowed a filed by S. Chidambara Selvan, a former employee of the , setting aside the Commission's order dated .
Complaint Alleged Forcible Deboarding
The third respondent, N. Ramesh Kumar, had complained to the that on , while traveling on a bus bearing registration No. TN 74 N 1657 (Route 2V), the driver and conductor forcibly pushed him out and failed to issue him a travel ticket. The Commission, after examining the counter filed by the transport corporation and other records, concluded that the route map produced by the corporation appeared to be an afterthought and ordered the petitioner to pay compensation for violating the passenger's human rights.
Petitioner's Argument: Wrong Forum
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the Commission had misapplied its . He submitted that the entire dispute revolved around the non-issuance of a ticket and the crew's alleged rude conduct—matters that fall squarely within the domain of consumer forums, not . The Commission, he contended, ought not to have entertained the complaint at all.
Court's Reasoning: , Not Human Rights Issue
The High Court carefully examined the impugned order and observed that the Commission had proceeded
"substantially on the basis of the dispute relating to the bus journey, the issuance of the travel ticket and the records maintained by the second respondent-Corporation."
It held that a complaint about
and the conduct of bus crew cannot be treated as a
warranting compensation. The Bench emphasized that the remedy, if any, lies before the competent Consumer Forum, not the Human Rights Commission.
Key Observations from the Judgment
“The complaint made by the third respondent essentially relates to a consumer grievance arising out of the alleged and the conduct of the crew of the bus. The same could not have been treated, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as a complaint involving violation of human rights warranting the imposition of compensation by the .”
Order and Implications
The High Court allowed the and set aside the , observing that the Commission had . The ruling clarifies that disputes involving service deficiencies—such as ticket issuance and passenger treatment—are not automatically elevated to human rights violations. This judgment serves as a significant reminder to to remain within their and to direct litigants to the for redress. With no order as to costs, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
