IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Deficiency in service - Section 39(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019/Section 14(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. empowers the Consumer Commissions to remove the deficiency in service if allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved.
(2) Exemplary Compensation - If the present consumer has chosen to come forward to file complaints for such deficiency in service and is able to establish that he has received deficient service, he is entitled to appropriate compensation due to repetitive default on the part of OP-I/Petitioner herein, rather in such cases OP-1/Petitioner are liable to pay exemplary compensation to the complainant.

ORDER

The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, against the common order dated 16.09.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeals FA/31/2020, FA/30/2020, FA/56/2020, FA/57/2020, FA/75/2020, FA/76/2020, FA/77/2020 in which order dated 09.12.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. CC/1086/2019, CC/1087/2019, CC/1128/2019, CC/1129/2019, CC/554/2019, CC/41/2019, CC/42/2019 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the State Commission’s order.

2. As the above stated 7 RPs have been filed against the similar orders of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP 567 of 2022 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP 567 of 2022.

3. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Respondent-1 and the Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as complainant) was Appellant, the Respondent-2 (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was respondent-2 in the above mentioned FAs before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP-1, Respondent-2 was OP-2 and Respondent-1 was complainant before the District Commission in the above mentioned CCs.

4. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 03.08.2022. Petitioners filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 10.08.2023, Respondents did not file any written arguments/synopsis.

5. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:—

The respondent-1/complainant initiated a series of consumer complaints before the District Commission, making several allegations against the petitioner/OP-1, who are the transport authorities. These complaints primarily focused on the OP-1’s alleged failure to implement adequate measures to prevent smoking in public transport buses, particularly by their own employees, including bus drivers and conductors. In addition to the smoking issue, the complaints encompassed other concerns, such as being overcharged for bus fares and instances of “burning litter in public.” The OP-1 contended that the complainant did not meet the legal definition of a “consumer” as outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Consequently, they assert that these complaints should be categorized under the purview of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA Act, 2003). The OP-1 also informed the District Commission that they had taken proactive steps, including issuing instructions to their employees, including drivers and conductors, to abstain from smoking. They had also appointed nodal officers responsible for conducting periodic inspections and ensuring compliance with these directives. The District Commission determined that smoking in public transport buses constituted an offense under COTPA 2003, and individuals caught smoking should be penalized under that Act and the consumer complaints were dismissed. Subsequently, the complainant lodged First Appeals before the State Commission. The OP-1 submitted that they had initiated proceedings under COTPA 2003 against the driver and conductor, which resulted in the driver being fined. As alleged by the OP-1, the State Commission treated the first appeals as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)-Writ Petition and assumed a role akin to a writ court under the Indian Constitution. The Commission rendered a judgment and order that exceeded its jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

6. Vide Order dated 09.12.2019, in the CC no. 1086 of 2019