Court rules consumer grievances do not constitute human rights violations, directs complaints to appropriate consumer forums.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has annulled an order by the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) that had directed the payment of Rs. 30,000 as compensation in a case of alleged rude behavior and deficiency in service by bus staff. The court clarified that such consumer grievances cannot be construed as human rights violations warranting compensation from the SHRC.
The case originated when S. Chidambara Selvan, an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, was accused by a passenger, identified as the third respondent, of forcibly removing him from a bus without issuing a travel ticket. The incident, dated January 16, 2016, involved a bus on Route No. 2V.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. M.P. Senthil, challenged the SHRC's order dated September 16, 2019, which had concluded that the petitioner violated the human rights of the third respondent, and consequently, directed the payment of compensation. The SHRC had based its decision on the assessment that certain documents, such as the route map submitted during the proceedings, were created post-facto to undermine the complaint.
Presiding over the case, Justice M. Dhandapani and Justice N. Dilip Kumar of the Madurai Bench evaluated the merits of the SHRC's findings. The court observed that the complaint, fundamentally a consumer issue about service deficiency and improper conduct by bus staff, did not constitute a human rights violation. The judgment emphasized that such matters should be addressed within the framework of consumer protection laws and before the Consumer Forum, as opposed to being treated as human rights infractions.
Despite the absence of representation from the third respondent during the hearing, the court proceeded to rule in favor of the petitioner. The bench highlighted that the SHRC overstepped its jurisdiction by entertaining the complaint, which was essentially a consumer grievance, and by imposing a compensation order.
Concluding the hearing, the High Court set aside the SHRC's order and dismissed the petition with no costs, directing that the connected miscellaneous petition be closed.
This judgment underscores the delineation between consumer disputes and human rights violations, clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the SHRC in addressing such complaints.
Bottom Line :
Consumer Grievance vs. Human Rights Violation - A consumer grievance relating to deficiency in service, such as non-issuance of a travel ticket and improper conduct by bus staff, cannot be treated as a violation of human rights warranting compensation by the State Human Rights Commission.
Statutory provision(s): Jurisdiction of State Human Rights Commission, Consumer Protection Laws
