Babus and rude behaviour are almost synonymous. Whether it’s a public sector bank, post office or telephone office, you are more likely to be greeted with a frown than a smile. Most of us shrug it off as typical government servant behaviour. Now, thanks to BL Sood, a partially handicapped 75-year-old, there’s legal precedent to take action against rudeness.
After a seven-year battle with Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), he received justice. While hearing his case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that “rough behaviour by an employee of a service provider cannot be permitted...This amounts to deficiency of service”.
But first, Sood’s version of the story behind this historic judgement. On 26 July 1998, Sood was waiting for a bus. After nearly 90 minutes, he got one. The bus was overcrowded and the conductor, instead of collecting tickets, sat glued to his seat. Sood was still waiting his turn with the fare in his hand when DTC officials boarded the bus and asked him to produce his ticket. When Sood said he was still waiting to buy it, he was made to get off the bus and pay a fine of Rs 20.
“The ticket examiners were rude and abusive. They manhandled me. I had no option but to pay the fine,” says Sood. “But I was determined
to take up the case.” The first step was to approach the district commission. The commission found it to be “an unequal fight between David and Goliath” and imposed a penalty of Rs 3,000 on DTC for deficiency in service.
“The attitude of DTC was clear from the beginning, as they continuously missed hearing dates despite being fined three times by the court and came to the court in November 2000—two years after the case was filed and then without a copy of the complaint,” says Sood.
| The Case Rude and insulting behaviour by DTC ticket examiners | The Verdict DTC was fined by the NCDRC stating “rough behaviour by an employee of a service provider...is deficiency of service” |
| What you can learn from Sood's case when fighting for your rights: ENGAGE: Sood fought the case himself. Even if you have a lawyer, be present at the hearings. UPDATE: Sood stayed in touch with passengers (witnesses) who had travelled with him. RESEARCH: He collected negative articles published in newspapers about DTC. ANALYSE: He compared ticket collection in other cities to establish why the conductor was duty bound to collect tickets. ANTICIPATE: The other side will try to cast doubts about your reputation. Sood countered this with certificates to establish his good character. | |
DTC appealed to the Delhi State Commission, which held it guilty of deficiency of service but reduced the compensation. Sood went to the NCDRC, which restored the district commission’s order and asked DTC to pay Rs 5,000 more as costs. “I did not spend seven years fighting for Rs 5,000; I fought because what was done to me was wrong.
The judgement is even more satisfying when I realise that people in a similar plight don’t need to spend years to establish rude behaviour as deficiency of service; all they need to do is quote this judgement,” he says.
One reason why public servants are rude is that several government organisations have laws shielding staff from complaints of deficiency of service.
For instance, under Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act 1898, the government is “exempted from any liability against mis-delivery, damage or loss of postal articles”. However, the consumer court holds that “any statute providing immunity as to the liability of a service provider does not come in the way of the right of a consumer to be compensated under the Consumer Protection Act”. The courts also ensure that the concerned employee does not get off free.
In the case of Sood, NCDRC held that “it would be open to DTC to recover the amount from the concerned officials”. Earlier, the Supreme Court, in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta, had ruled that “the department concerned [must] pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund but can recover the same from those who are found responsible”.
