IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Petitioner Roadways did not discharge its onus of dutifully and promptly making refund, in full, albeit, with courteous regrets or apology, when it was the service provider and was unmistakably deficient in its service.
2) Transport service for carriage of passenger is an essential public utility service under Sec. 2(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1981 and strike by employees cannot be to detriment of convenience of the public at large.

ORDER

Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member.—This Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act 1986’) [corresponding Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the ‘Act 2019’)] in challenge to the Order dated 15.01.2020 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U. T. Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 176 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 28.06.2019 in C.C. No. 541 of 2018 of The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (the ‘District Commission’).

The Petitioners, Haryana Roadways, were the Opposite Parties before the District Commission (the ‘Roadways’).

The Respondent, Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, was the Complainant before the District Commission (the ‘Complainant’).

2. Arguments heard from the learned Counsel for the Roadways.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 28.06.2019 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 15.01.2020 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3. The Petition has been filed with self-admitted delay of 246 days. Notwithstanding the Covid-19 situation mentioned insipidly in para 6 of the application for condonation of delay, the reasons contained in paras 3 to 9 of the said application essentially point towards managerial inefficiency and a perfunctory and casual attitude to the law of limitation.

Sufficient cause to explain the delay is not visible.

However, in the interest of justice, to provide fair opportunity to the Roadways, to settle the matter on merit, the delay in filing the Petition is condoned.

4. Succinctly, the matter in issue relates to cancellation of bus service by the Roadways without reasonable timely prior intimation to the passengers (the Complainant and his lady wife) in violation of its own terms and conditions, making the refund of the amount paid for the e-ticket only after email correspondence by the Complainant and making the said refund with some deduction.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 28.06.2019 dismissed the Complaint.

The State Commission, vide its impugned Order dated 15.01.2020, accepted the Appeal instituted by the Complainant. It set aside the Order of the District Commission and partly allowed the Complaint.

5. The rival contentions have been succinctly captured by the State Commission in paras 2 and 3 of its Order of 15.01.2020:

2. It was the admitted case of both the parties before the Forum that the complainant booked two Volvo bus tickets from Chandigarh to Delhi Airport through online e-ticketing service of the opposite parties for 19.10.2018 at 01:26 A.M. by paying an amount of Rs. 1,360/- towards basic fair plus Rs.50/- as reservation charges. The complainant and his wife were having their flight from Delhi Airport to Goa. However, when they reached the Chandigarh Bus Stand to board the bus at the scheduled date and time, he was shocked to know that the said bus had been cancelled by the opposite parties. With no other alternative, the complainant booked private taxi from Chandigarh bus stand to Delhi Airport by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- as taxi fair. It was his case that the opposite parties did not intimate the complainant qua cancellation of the bus well in time i.e. before 19.10.2018, as a result whereof, he suffered lot of mental pain and agony due to said deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The stand of the opposite parties before the Forum was that the cancellation of bus was due to strike of Haryana Roadways Employees for the period from 16.10.2018 to 02.11.2018. It was stated that the employees union extended the strike continuously for 18 days and information regarding strike was being published in various newspapers regularly. It was further stated that prior intimation regarding cancellation of buses could not be sent to the passengers including the complainant as the strike was sudden and beyond the control of the opposite parties. The opposite