Madras High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction on Passenger’s Complaint
The Madras High Court has determined that a passenger’s complaint regarding forcible de-boarding from a government bus is a matter of consumer grievance rather than a human rights violation. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices M Dhandapani and N Dilip Kumar in the case of Chidambara Selvan v. TNHRC.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on January 16, 2016, involving the complainant, N Ramesh Kumar, who alleged mistreatment by the bus conductor and driver on a government-operated bus, Route No. 2V. Kumar claimed he was rudely treated, forcibly de-boarded, and denied a travel ticket. He subsequently filed a complaint with the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), citing a violation of human rights.
SHRC’s Initial Ruling
Upon reviewing the complaint, the SHRC ordered compensation of ₹30,000 to be paid to Kumar, concluding that his human rights had been violated. The transport corporation challenged this decision, arguing that the route map and travel records presented were ignored by the SHRC, which contended that these documents were fabricated to undermine the passenger’s claims.
High Court’s Assessment
S Chidambara Selvan, the petitioner and an employee of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, challenged the SHRC’s ruling, arguing that the issue at hand was a consumer grievance linked to a service deficiency. He asserted that the appropriate forum for such disputes should be consumer courts, not the SHRC.
The Madras High Court agreed with Selvan’s argument. It highlighted that the core of the dispute involved the bus journey, the issuance of a ticket, and the conduct of the transport crew. The Court concluded that these issues reflected a consumer grievance, not a human rights violation.
More Read
Final Verdict
The Court, therefore, set aside the SHRC’s September 2019 order, invalidating the compensation award. The Bench emphasized that the circumstances did not justify the SHRC’s classification of the complaint as a human rights case.
Representation
The petitioner was represented by Advocate MPS Senthil. Advocate Gokul Abimanyu, with C Arul Vadivel, represented the SHRC, while Advocate R Rajamohan appeared for the transport corporation. Government Advocate MS Parthiban represented the State.
This ruling underscores the necessity of distinguishing consumer grievances from human rights violations in legal proceedings.
