Forcibly de-boarding passenger from bus is a consumer case, not human rights violation: Madras HC

The Madras High Court recently held that a passenger’s complaint that he was forcibly de-boarded from a government bus and denied a ticket amounted to a consumer grievance and cannot ordinarily be treated as a human rights violation [Chidambara Selvan v. TNHRC].

A Bench of Justices M Dhandapani and N Dilip Kumar, therefore, set aside a Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) order directing the payment of compensation to a passenger who alleged that a bus conductor had behaved rudely with him before forcing him to de-board a bus.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by S Chidambara Selvan, an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

He challenged an SHRC order passed in September 2019, by which a sum of ₹30,000 was ordered to be paid to bus passenger on account of his human rights being violated by the crew of the bus.

The dispute arose from an incident on January 16, 2016. The complainant, N Ramesh Kumar, alleged that he was travelling on a government bus operating on Route No. 2V when the driver and conductor behaved rudely with him.

He claimed that the bus crew forcibly pushed him out of the bus and also failed to issue him a travel ticket. Kumar subsequently approached the SHRC alleging a violation of his human rights.

The transport corporation contested the complaint and placed on record documents including the route map and five sheets containing the bus travel records. The SHRC, however, concluded that the route map had been prepared subsequently to defeat the passenger’s claim.

On this basis, the Commission held that Kumar’s human rights had been violated and awarded him ₹30,000 as compensation.

Before the High Court, Selvan argued that the Commission had failed to properly consider the documents placed before it. He further submitted that the allegations involved a consumer grievance arising from an alleged deficiency in service.

Therefore, any remedy available to the passenger lay before the appropriate consumer forum and not the SHRC, the Court was told.

The High Court agreed. It noted that the Commission’s findings substantially revolved around the bus journey, issuance of a ticket and the records maintained by the transport corporation.

The complaint made by the third respondent essentially relates to a consumer grievance arising out of the alleged deficiency in service 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 State Human Rights Commission.

The High Court agreed.

"The complaint made by the third respondent (complainant) essentially relates to a consumer grievance arising out of the alleged deficiency in service 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 State Human Rights Commission," the Court ruled.

The Bench, therefore, allowed the petition and set aside the Commission’s September 2019 order.

Advocate MPS Senthil represented the petitioner.

Advocates Gokul Abimanyu, appearing through C Arul Vadivel represented the SHRC.

Advocate R Rajamohan appeared for the transport corporation.

Government Advocate MS Parthiban represented the State government.

[Read Judgment]