ORDER

Three Revision Petition Nos. RP/224/2023, RP/225/2023, and RP/694/2023, have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”). These Revision Petitions challenged the Orders dated 01.12.2022, 08.08.2022, and 22.12.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’), respectively. These orders pertained to First Appeal Nos. FA/953/2018, FA/226/2021, & FA/40/2022. The State Commission, in these appeals by the Complainant, affirmed the impugned Orders, thus upholding the decisions made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, Jind & U.T. Chandigarh, respectively (“District Forum”), in CC/395/2016, CC/76/2019 & CC/1127/2019.

2. As the facts and questions of law involved in all three Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates, events and places, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, FA No. 953/2018 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 395/2016.

3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum & State Commission.

4. In brief, on 31.07.2016, the Complainant traveled from Chandigarh to Delhi, purchasing a ticket for Rs.575/- on Bus No. HR55Q3914 operated by Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon Depot. During the journey, both the driver and conductor smoked near the bus window at a stop in Karnal, causing smoke to enter the bus and inconvenience to him who was seated behind the conductor’s seat. The Complainant asserted that under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003, open cigarettes cannot be sold in Haryana tourist places, and the tourism department failed to enforce this rule. The Complainant filed a complaint with the General Manager of Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, who fined the driver and conductor Rs.200/- each and notified the Complainant via a letter dated 23.08.2016. However, the Complainant believes that this action by the General Manager was merely a formality. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a Complaint numbered CC/395/2016 before the District Forum.

5. In the joint reply, the Opposite Parties (OPs) refuted the allegations made by the complainant. The OPs admitted that the Complainant traveled on bus No. HR 55Q 3914. However, they stated that upon receiving the complaint about the incident of smoking on 31.07.2016, they had already fined both the conductor and driver Rs.200/- each in accordance with the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003. The OPs further asserted that smoking articles were not allowed to be sold in bus stand areas under their jurisdiction. They vehemently denied the allegation that they merely went through a formality in response to his grievance, emphasizing that the action taken was in accordance with the provisions of the Smoking Act. Additionally, all Haryana Roadways buses were clearly marked with “No Smoking” signs, and the driver and conductor cabins were typically separate from the passenger seats, especially in air-conditioned buses. Any smoke entering the bus would have been due to a passenger opening a window.

6. The District Forum, vide order dated 16.05.2018, dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Complainant filed FA No. 953/2018 before the State Commission. The learned State Commission, vide order dated 01.12.2012 found no irregularity or perversity in the impugned order and subsequently dismissed the appeal.

7. The Petitioner, discontented with the Impugned Order dated 01.12.2012, and filed the RP No. 224 of 2023, seeking the following:—

“8. You are humbly requested to consider and grant the following prayers, and to overturn the impugned order dated 01.12.2012, issued by the Haryana State Consum