National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shri Harmit Singh vs Union Of India & Anr, Shri N K Verma on 25 November, 2005
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2804 OF 2004 (Against the order dated 13/10/2004 in Appeal/ Complaint No. 324 of 2004 of the State Commission CHANDIGARH ) Shri Harmit Singh S/o Shri Bhajan Singh R/o H NO.2668-B, Sector 28- C Chandigarh Petitioner (s) Vs Union of India & Anr Through Secretary, Department of Transport Chandigarh Administration U T Chandigarh Respondent (s) BEFORE : HONBLE MR JUSTICE M B SHAH, PRESIDENT HONBLE DR P D SHENOY, MEMBER For the Petitioner : IN PERSON For the Respondent : Shri N K Verma, Advocate Dated : November 25th , 2005. ORDER
PER DR P D SHENOY, MEMBER This is a case of harassment by the public functionary. The complainant Harmit Singh purchased a second hand car at Delhi and had applied to the registering authority at Chandigarh Administration alongwith relevant papers, original RC, no objection from the competent authority and also other papers duly signed by the previous owner on 25.04.1995 for issuing registration certificate in his favour. The said RC book was ultimately given on 03.06.2003 and for the abnormal delay in discharge of duties the District Forum awarded compensation which was increased by the State Commission in appeal to Rs.15,000/-.
Case of the complainant :
Complainant purchased a second hand Ambassador Car for Rs. One lakh and applied to the Registering authority etc., for transfer of owner ship alongwith all relevant documents on 25.04.1995. He was given a slip for the receipt of the documents. Despite repeated visits to the Office of the Registering authority, the RC book was not given and ultimately in 2001 he was informed that the file concerning his case was not traceable. Thereafter, he served a legal notice on the opposite parties on 23.10.2001 which evoked no response. The complainant alleges that in the absence of the RC book, the car has become junk due to non use and he was not in a position to sell the same. He has sought relief to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/-.
During the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum he was asked to submit the documents. He complied with the orders and ultimately a duplicate RC was delivered to the complainant on 03.06.2003. The District Forum held that abnormal delay constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly it directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant and also awarded Rs. 500 in addition as litigation cost. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant as well as the opposite parties filed cross appeals which were heard together by the State Commission. The State Commission held that during this long period his mental trauma though not quantifiable, is quite easy to imagine. Keeping in view the entirety of facts of the case, we are of the firm view that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and this portion of the impugned order needs modification. Therefore, the appeal No. 324 of 2004 is dismissed as it lacks merit. Consequently, the impugned order is amended to the extent that OP No. 2 shall pay a lump sum Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant in addition to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs of litigation.
Dis-satisfied with the order of the State Commission Shri Harmit Singh has filed this revision. He has pleaded that considering unjustifiable delay in grant of the RC and also continuous deficiency of service, mental agony, harassment etc. and interest on the claim the respondent may be directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-
in addition to the cost of litigation.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT :
Complainant appeared in person. He produced the acknowledgment slip issued by the Registering Authority (MV) UT Chandigarh which mentions the number of the car and the same was extended from time to time. According to him, the acknowledgement slip issued by the Registering authority (MV), UT, Chandigarh did not mention the chassis number/ engine number, name of the buyer and name of the seller etc. which are required by the insurance authority. Similarly, with this slip he cannot sell his vehicle. He produced a copy of the duplicate certificate of the registration. The vehicle could not be plied on the road due to absence of registration papers till 2003. Further more the car is reduced to a junk. Thirdly, in the absence of RC the car could not be sold.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT:
The main argument of the Learned Counsel for the respondent ( Mr Verma ) is that the complainant is not a consumer and registering authority is exercising sovereign functions. He admitted that there has been undue delay in the grant of duplicate RC and there has been lapse on the part of the department, but it does not entitle the complainant to claim huge compensation. Department has also made all out efforts to trace out the documents and made enquiries in this regard, hence the revision petition may be dismissed.
FINDINGS
(a) It is observed by the State Commission as follows :
We have seen the record of the case as well as the impugned order and have also heard the counsel for the parties. The plea of the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer qua the OPs was never raised in the written statement nor was it raised at any other time before the District Forum. It cannot now lie in the mouth of the OPs, at this stage to claim that the complainant is not a consumer.
This issue has already been decided by the District Forum as well as by the State Commission. No revision petition has been filed by the respondent against the State Commissions order and therefore as far as the respondent is concerned the order of the State Commission is final and binding.
(b) A perusal of the acknowledgement for the documents issued by the Registering Authority it only indicates the number of the vehicle but not the name of the owner or any other particulars etc., which can entitle to get him the insurance certificate or to sell that car. A duplicate Registration certificate (RC) was ultimately issued on 03.06.2003 after a lapse of 8 years which is clear from the copy filed before us. This is not disputed by the opposite party. The opposite party have also not disputed the abnormal delay in giving the duplicate RC.
(c) It is also clear from the records that the complainant had made repeated visits to the office of Registering Authority and after five years they came with a plea that there was fire in their office, therefore, he followed-up with a legal notice and ultimately as he did not get any relief, he knocked at the doors of the District Forum. Only after, the District Forum was seized of the matter the Registering Authority condescended to give the RC. The complainant has claimed lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/-
whereas the State Commission has awarded Rs. 15,000/- in addition of payment of Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
In our view, this is a case of harassment of an ordinary citizen by the public functionary, may be that he has not succumbed to the pressure of undesirable functioning of the officers in charge and, therefore, is required to suffer. For such type of cases exemplary damages are required to be awarded. In such a case, Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority vs M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 at 262-263, observed :
The jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd., v Broome 1972 AC 1027 : (1972) 1 All ER 801 on the principal that, an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes v Barnard 1964 AC 1129 : (1964) 1 All ER 367, 410 it was observed by Lord Devlin, the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it losses its individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning of offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. Wade in his book Administrative Law has observed that it is to the credit of public authorities that there are simply few reported English decisions on this form of malpractice, namely, misfeasance in public offices which includes malicious use of power, deliberate maladministration and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury. One of the reasons for this appears to be development of law which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in the government or semi-government offices by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra vires action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen by awarding damages against them..
Considering the inexplicable and abnormal delay in granting the registration certificate, that too after filing of the complaint before the consumer forum, the order passed by the State Commission granting compensation requires to be enhanced. Apart from the mental agony suffered by the complainant, he has suffered loss because he could not use the vehicle for years together. In our view, a compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper.
It is expected that in such cases the Department will recover the amount of compensation partially or in full from the defaulting officers, on the basis of the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of M K Gupta (Supra).
In the result, the impugned order passed by the State Commission is modified. The respondents are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation in addition to the costs of litigation as awarded by the State Commission. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
sd/-
J [ M B Shah ] President Sd/-
[ P D Shenoy ] Member [ rsk ]