State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deputy Regional Transport Officer vs Vijay Dilip Sirsat & Anr. on 30 April, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5th Floor, Administrative Building No. 1 Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 First Appeal No. A/11/56 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/11/2010 in Case No. CC/09/118 of District Buldhana) DEPUTY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER OFFICE OF DEPUTY REGIONAL TRANS. BULDHANA NEAR BUS STAND DISTT. TAL. BULDHANA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. VIJAY DILIP SIRSAT THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRIKANT DELIPRAO SHIRSAT, RES. AT GANRAJ JAMBHRUN ROAD, SUVARNA NAGAR, BULLDHANA, TAL, DISTT. BULDHANA 2. PROP. AKASH AUTOMOBILES, BHAGVAN MAHAVIR MARG, MAIN ROAD, BULLDHANA, TAL.DISTT. BULDHANA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: Hon'ble Mr. B.A.Shaikh, Presiding Member Hon'ble Mr. S.B.Sawarkar, Member PRESENT: Adv.Mr Tahliyani for the Appellant Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Proceeded Exparte ORDER
(Passed on 30.04.2014) Per Mr S B Sawarkar, Honble Member
1. The appeal below is against the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldhana dtd.30.11.2010 in consumer complaint No. CC/09/118 granting the complaint and ordering the relief as below that :-
i. The O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 shall properly register the sold vehicle TVS Teenz Electric Start.
ii. If the registration is not possible then O.P.No.1 should return the purchased cost of vehicle of Rs.30,500/- to the complainant and O.P.No.2 should pay interest upon the above price from 16.06.2008 till final payment @ 9% p.a. iii. O.P.No.2 shall pay the compensation @ Rs.500/- p.m. totaling to Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for causing mental, physical harassment due to carelessness of his officers in performing government duty.
iv. After the payment as above, the O.P.No.2 shall recover the same amount from the defaulting officers in equal ratio.
v.
O.P.No.2 shall pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- as cost of the complaint.
vi. The execution of the order above shall be done by O.P.Nos.1 & 2 in the span of 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The interesting facts leading to such appeal are that the complainant one Vijay Dilip Shirsat purchased a battery operated TVS Teenz Electric Start vehicle from O.P.No.1 M/s Akash Automobiles, Buldhana on 16.06.2008 for Rs.30,500/-. While selling the vehicle O.P.No.1 took the amount for registration of the vehicle and sent the vehicle for registration with proper papers to O.P.No.2 The Dy. Regional Transport Officer, Buldhana. However, the O.P.No.2 on the ground that the application does not provide the information about the fuel and the horsepower of the vehicle refused to register the vehicle and returned it. The complainant and O.P.No.1 as per complaint repeatedly contacted O.P.No.2 with Registration Form No.21 and repeatedly requested for registration of the vehicle being first of its make. The complainant also sent a request to the Transport Commissioner and also to the manufacturer of the vehicle at Chennai.
However, the O.P.No.2 refused to register the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant gave a notice to O.P.No.1 and finding no relief to his request, he filed a complaint No. CC/09/118 on 06.08.2009 before the Forum Buldhana. He requested the Forum to accept his complaint and hold O.P.No.1 to be responsible for non-registration of his vehicle by filing wrong information. He further requested to order O.P.Nos.1 & 2 to register the vehicle or to return him the price of the vehicle of Rs.30,500/- from 16.06.2008 with interest @ 18% and Rs.20,000/- for mental physical agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
3. The O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 appeared before the Forum and submitted through their statement as below:-
O.P.No.1 denied any deficiency of service and submitted that he is a dealer of the vehicle for Buldhana District and the vehicle sold by them is fully eligible and roadworthy for registration as per the circular issued by Transport Commission (MS) on 07.02.2008. The O.P.No.1 contended that the O.P.No.2s superior officer has issued the circular referred above and if he wanted any clarifications it was his duty to get the clarifications from the Transport Commissioner Office. However, the O.P.No.2 took an obstinate stand and in spite of providing proper information, refused to register the vehicle. O.P.No.1 repeatedly requested O.P.No.2 and also sent request letters to clarify the queries, but in vein. O.P.No.2 registered such vehicle previously also; however, in the present case, refused totally with evasive replies. Hence, O.P.No.1 denied any deficiency or laxity submitting the issue to be between the complainant and O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 submitted that he was also required to suffer mental and physical harassment hence, deserved like compensation.
4. O.P.No.2 filed letters before the Forum, accepting that the complainant submitted the vehicle for registration and also deposited registration cost and tax with application in Form No.20. However, the O.P.No.1 did not give proper chassis number, wrong horsepower of 60 CC and no entry about the fuel in the vehicle. In Form No.21 the complainant made a misleading entry of TVS Teenz Electric Start. The O.P.No.2 raised a question as to how a battery running vehicle would be an electric start. He also stated that there were some ambiguities in the circular issued by the Transport Commission and therefore submitted that on 16.06.2008 the RTO Inspector did not accept the vehicle for registration. The O.P.No.2 submitted further that if O.P.No.1 makes proper clarifications about the technical aspects, as above, and if the Transport Commissioner also gives proper guidance, the O.P.No.2 would take positive stand for registration of vehicle. O.P.No.2 further elected to take the clarification from Transport Commission in 30 days.
5. The Forum in its enquiry about the registration of same make vehicle by O.P.No.2 found that the O.P.No.2 on 25.11.2008 registered such vehicle in the name of Deepak Aniruddha Shelke.
6. After hearing in detail both the parties and perusal of papers filed before it, the Forum held that the complainant purchased TVS Teenz Electric Start from O.P.No.1. O.P.No.1 gave a proper Form No.21 with insurance and clearly mentioning the Chassis and engine number. O.P.No.1 deposited registration fee of Rs.160/- and One Time Tax of Rs.2,135/-. There is a clear circular by the transport Commissioner to register the two wheeler motorcycle of TVS Teenz Electric-800. The RTO inspector noted his objections and submitted the papers to his superior officer on which the Officer of OP. No.2 made a remark of TC is silent regarding power fitment rejected. O.P.No.2 returned the amount of Rs.2,595/- on 28.06.2008. The Forum discussing the submissions of O.P.No.1 and submissions of O.P.No.2, came to the conclusion that the O.P.No.2 out of either lack of knowledge or obstinacy or through arrogance of power refused to register the vehicle for which the then RTO, Buldhana, Shri Date was only responsible.
7. The Forum held that though O.P.No.2 out of obstinacy refused to register the vehicle still O.P.No.1 is also responsible for deficiency and therefore held the complaint fit for acceptance deserving compensation and relief.
8. The Forum also held that the O.P.No.2 is responsible for compensation by the reason of carelessness, non-observation of office orders and lacunae in performance of duty and decided to levy the cost & compensation upon O.P.No.2.
9. The Forum relied on the judgement passed by Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development authority Vs. M K Gupta, reported in III(1999) CPJ 7 (AC). In which the superior court held that-
The authority empowered to function under statute has to act to sub-serve general welfare and common good. Where the duty is performed capriciously or the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then the responsibility to pay the loss determined should be whose?
In a modern society no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. It is unfortunate that matters which require immediate attention linger on and the man in the street is made to run from one end to other with no result. The culture of window clearance appears to be totally dead. Even in ordinary matters a common man who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match the inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the credibility in the system.
It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which, finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further, direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.
10. Thus, discussing the reasons, admissibility and requirement of the cost and compensation, to provide relief to the complainant, the Forum below held the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 to be the service providers for the complainant. Also to have provided deficient service and caused mental and physical harassment of the complainant. Thus, the Forum passed the order as above.
11. Aggrieved against the order the O.P.No.2, filed the appeal before us. Hence, the O.P.No.2 is being referred as appellant hereafter. The complainant is being referred as respondent No.1 and original O.P.No.1 is being referred as respondent No.2.
12. We heard the advocate of the appellant. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained absent and also did not file Written Notes of Arguments. Perused the papers and Written Notes of Arguments of the appellant.
13. The appellant contended that the Forum below erred in holding the respondent No.1 to be the consumer of the appellant. The appellant submitted that though the respondent No.1 had deposited the amount for registration of vehicle, but it was for the Govt. taxes and was not a consideration given for rendering the service as is provided in the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was not providing the services but was performing the duty of the Government, which being a sovereign duty would not fall in the category of the service.
14. The appellants counsel further submitted that the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 did not properly filled and submitted the Form No.20, 21 for the registration of the vehicle. The respondent No.2 did not give the correct Chassis No. and called the battery operated vehicle, electric start. Also did not give proper information about the horsepower and fuel being used by the vehicle. The circular issued by the Transport Commissioner also had some lacunae which needed clarification.
15. The appellant counsel further submitted that as per the Sec.45 of Motor Vehicle Act, if the registering authority refused to register, the aggrieved person can appeal to the Transport Commissioner, who would then deal with the registration. But without appealing as above the respondent approached Forum, which also wrongly entertained the complaint.
16. The appellant also submitted that he had returned the amount deposited by the respondent No.2 to him and therefore there was no relation of consumer and service provider among them. Thus the complaint was beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act and untenable in the Act.
17. The appellant relied on the judgement passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in S P Goyal Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, AIR-1996 SC-839. Honble Supreme Court of India categorically held that the person presenting copy for registration is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellants RTOs job is to collect revenue on behalf of the Government. It does not mean that by accepting fees, RTO can be held to be rendering service like the service rendered by BSNL, MTNL, electric Board, etc. They are discharging sovereign functions of the State and collection of fees is in terms of the Government directives. Therefore, the respondent herein cannot be said to be the consumer of RTO appellant and RTO cannot be styled as a service provider.
18. Appellant further relied on the judgement given by the Maharashtra State Commission in appeal 106 of 2009, in ARTO Shrungare, Gondia Vs. Shri Gopinath Keralkar passed on 06.02.2009, holding the function of the registration by the RTO to be the sovereign function of the Government and held not include the element of service and consumer relation.
19. The appellant, therefore, vehemently submitted that the appellant had rejected the registration of the vehicle on valid queries, which were not properly satisfied by respondent No.2. The duty performed by it was a sovereign duty and therefore does not fall within the scope and ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The Forum below wrongly took cognizance of it. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be set aside and appeal needs to be allowed.
20. We delved upon the details, merits and the facts of the appeal and the order passed by the Forum below. As per the ratio set out by the Superior Courts and view held by the State Commission in the similar cases cited by the appellant, we have no course left open than to hold that the duty performed by the appellant is sovereign duty. It, therefore, cannot become the subject matter of Consumer Act and cannot be treated as service to the consumer on accepting due remuneration. No element of deficiency in service can be attributed to the action of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant does not fall in the scope of the Forum or Commission which can pass no order against it.
21. We, therefore, hold that appellant was not performing any consumer service and therefore no responsibility of deficiency is in its action. However, the appellant did not raise the above plea before the Forum below. But as the settled law is laid by the superior Court, we hold the impugned order of Forum below to be beyond its scope. It, therefore, needs to be set aside to the extent it pertains to the appellant.
22. However, in the light of the preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, we do not consider it to be out of our scope to refer and send our order to the Secretary (Transport), Government of Maharashtra and Transport Commissioner, Government of Maharashtra, with a earnest request to read the case papers of the above case. It is a bad repertoire on the performance of the officers of transport department in their dealings with the innocent person, who sent his vehicle for the registration. We find the knowledge of the registering authority to be in the most pathetic state that it did not know about the fuel and horsepower of a battery operated vehicle introduced for the first time. The registering authority appears to have deprived the poor respondent from using his nature friendly vehicle for 30 long months when the circular of TC to register such vehicle was crystal clear. We would request the Transport Commissioner to issue appropriate circular to his officers so that no one should suffer as the respondent No.1 in future.
23. Thus, in the light of the reason recorded, we pass the order as below. We also do not consider it fit to provide any costs to the appellant.
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it relates and affects the appellant.
iii. Thus the appellant is absolved of paying any interest or compensation to respondent No.1.
iv. The parties to bear their own cost of litigation.
v. The member copies be returned to the appellant.
vi. The copies of the order be provided to the parties.
vii. The registry is directed to send the copy of the order to -
a.
Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra (Transport), Mumbai b.
Transport Commissioner, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
[ B. A. SHAIKH ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ S. B. SAWARKAR ] MEMBER sj