State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Purushottam S/Obalkisankachhi vs Regional Transportcommissioner on 30 March, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/445/2014
PURUSHOTTAM S/OBALKISANKACHHI
PRESENT ADDRESS - PLOT NO.01-A,SHRIRAM NAGAR,NEAR HANUMANMANDIR,MHALGI
NAGAR,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORTCOMMISSIONER
PRESENT ADDRESS - GIRIPETH,AMRAVATI ROAD,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
PRESENT ADDRESS - MAHARASHTRA STATE,NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,NEAR
DR.AMBEDKAR GARDEN,BANDRA EAST,MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
UNITED TELCOMES LT
PRESENT ADDRESS - GIRIPETH,AMRAVATI ROAD,NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ADV. TUSHAR MANDLEKAR FOR THE APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
ADV. GIRISH DUBE FOR THE RESPONDENT.
DATED: 30/03/2026
ORDER
(Delivered on 30/03/2026) Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon'ble Presiding Member
1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Original Complainant namely Shri Purushottam S/o Balkisan Kachhi, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd. 25/07/2014 in Complaint No. CC/647/2011 passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur (Hereinafter referred as "The Forum") under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for the sake of brevity "The Act")
2. The learned Forum, Nagpur dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Act and hence this appeal. The brief facts of the appeal mentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellant as Complainant and present Respondents, Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur, Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and United Telecom Ltd., Nagpur as Opposite Parties for the better appreciation.)
3. In a nutshell it is a case of the Complainant that the Complainant /appellant made an application for the purpose of grant of duplicate driving license under Rule 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by making an application to the Respondent no 1 on 22/08/2011 by making the payment of requisite fees. The Respondent no. 1 was required to give duplicate driving license to appellant within 4 days of the application being the Regional Transport Officer. But it is found and observed that respondent did not give driving license in smart card type format till 30 days and therefore the appellant who is the original complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum Nagpur on 20/10/2011 for "deficiency in service" and "unfair practice" on the part of respondents.
4. Notices were served to Opponents. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 collectively filed Written Version/ Reply and by general denials and defences restricted the claim of the Complainant and thereby denied all the allegations made by Complainant against the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. The O.P. No.1 and 2 submitted in its preliminary objection that the Learned District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as Complainants are not the consumers as per the provision of consumer protection act, 1986, as well as there is no relation of consumer and service provider.
5. The Opponents No.1 and 2 specifically submitted that it is the administrative work of State to issue license to the persons who drives vehicle and for the same they accept license fee. The administrative work of Opponent No.1 and 2 is as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and if there is any grievance against the officials of Opponent No.1 and 2 then there is tribunal or authorities particularly prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, the said District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. OP. No.3 had not filed reply.
6. The learned District Commission, thereafter recorded the evidence led by the Complainant as well as Opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The learned Commission, also went through the documents filed by both the parties as well as written notes of arguments. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as well as the authorities cited the leamed Commission has dismissed the Complaint. Apart from that complaint there are other four complaints were pending before the Learned District Commission having same subject matter therefore, the Learned District Commission decided all these 5 complaints are decided jointly and thereby all these complaints are dismissed vide order of dt. 25/07/2014. The OPs further contended that the order passed by the District Commission is just, proper and legal and no need to set aside.
7. That the District Commission vide its order dated 25/07/2014 disposed the entire complaint giving reason that the complainant is not the consumer of O.P./Respondents and therefore, the Learned District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and for the same the Learned District Commission has considered the authorities filed by the Respondent and not considered the authorities filed by the appellant/original Complainant.
8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Nagpur the present appeal is being filed on the following grounds firstly that Complainant made an application to the O.P. No 1 on 22/08/2011 by making the payment of requisite fees. The OP No. 1 was required to give duplicate driving license to appellant within the 4 days of the application being the Regional Transport Officer. But it is found and observed that respondent did not give driving license in smart card type format till 30 days and therefore the appellant who is the original complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum Nagpur on 20/10/2011 for "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" on the part of O.P./Respondent.
9. Complainant/Appellant prayed to allow the appeal and quash and set-aside the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on 25/07/2014 in Consumer case number CC/647/2011 and allow the complaint.
10. We have heard Mr. Tushar Mandlekar, learned advocate for the Complainant/Appellant and Mr. Girish Dubey learned advocate for the O.P./Respondent.
11. We have carefully gone through the documents and papers and written notes of argument filed by the parties which are placed on the record. On the basis of the facts stated above following points arises for determination with our findings recorded against the same as under.
Sr. Points for Determination Findings
No.
01. Whether the impugned order dated In the affirmative
25/07/2014 passed by the learned
District Consumer Dispute Redressal
Forum, Nagpur in Complaint case No.
CC/647/2011 suffers from any infirmity
or illegality and needs any
interference?
02. What Order? As per final order
REASONS
As to Points No. 1 and 2-
12. At the outset learned advocate for the original Complainant/appellant submitted that the Respondent No. 1 on 22/08/2011 by making the payment of requisite fees. The Respondent no. 1 was required to give duplicate driving license to appellant within the 4 days of the application being the Regional Transport Officer. But it is found and observed that respondent did not give driving license in smart card type format till 30 days and therefore the appellant who is the original complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum Nagpur on 20/10/2011 for "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice"
on the part of respondents/opponents.
13. Appellant/Complainant filed written notes of arguments and submitted that to sell the smart card type driving license for Rs. 200/- to the citizens as per the government decision (GSR 400-E) dated 31/05/2002. The said amount of Rs. 200/- is being shared between respondent no. 02 and 03. The amount of Rs.112.70/- is given to the respondent no. 01 and 02 and an amount of Rs. 87.30/- is given to respondent no. 03. Accordingly the citizens/appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs. 200/- for the purpose buying smart card type driving license from the respondent. In addition to that Rs. 50/- is required to be paid by every applicant for the purpose of respondent. In addition to that Rs. 50/- is required to be paid by every applicant for the purpose of getting delivery of the smart card type of driving license at home by registered post. Accordingly, 22/08/2011 to respondents for the purpose of also submitted that the appellant was holding a valid driving license no. 12782/1998 which was deposited by him to the respondents at the time of getting the duplicate driving license to him. Hence he had no valid driving license to drive his vehicle on public roads as mandated by section 158, 177 of MV Act 1988.
14. It is noteworthy to mention that respondent no. 1 has received an amount of Rs. 167.70/ from the appellant and respondent no. 03 has received the amount or Rs. 87.30/- from the appellant for the purpose of giving him "smart card type driving license". It is noteworthy to mention that the respondents ought to have given "service of smart card type driving licence" within stipulated time of four days to the appellant but failed in their respective duties and hence it was the contention of the Complainant that OP have committed deficiency in service. It is submitted that the Central Government has not mandated buying of such smart card type driving license in "Form no:-07" to the citizen of this country but all the respondents in convenience which other are found to have been involved in "unfair trade practice"
of forcible selling of the smart card type driving license to the citizens in the state of Maharashtra including the appellant.
15. The respondent no. 02 has appointed the respondent no. 03 to prepare and give smart card "service provider" to prepare said driving license in within "four days" and in any case within "seven days". Even the "citizens charter" published by the respondent no. 02 mandates the service of delivery of licence within "seven days". The copy of the "citizens charter" is enclosed as ANNEXURE-E. The appellant had make the application on 22/08/2011 but did not receive the smart card delivery even till 22/09/2011 and hence made the complaint to the respondent no. 02 on 22/09/2011. It is submitted that the Consumer Forum Nagpur had already decided similar complaints of the applicants and decided the issue in favour of the Consumers. The details of the similar complaints decided by the consumer forum Nagpur in favour of the consumer are as below :-
1) Sagar Girish Wasule (C. C. No. 789/09)
2) Makrand Harish Pandit (C. C. No. 790/09)
3) Dheeraj Gaidhane (C.C. No. 740/09)
4) Abhishek Prakash Shirole (C.C. No. 791/09
16. All the appeals were decided in favour of the complainant. The respondents went to the Hon'ble National Commission and all the revision Petitions were dismissed leaving the question of law open by way of the order passed on 30/03/2012.
17. It is the settled position of law that Co-ordinate court of same strength cannot take different and contradictory view once the similar issue is decided by the same court. The forum had already decided the issue in favour of the consumer complaints on /10/10 10/10 and therefore, the forum had no business to alter and decide the issue 'against the consumer and take a contradictory and adverse view without referring it to the "Larger Bench" It is the judicial practice to issue the fresh notice to the parties concerned if at all the matter is required to be re-opened after it has been closed for orders. Because the order impugned is against the settled judicial proposition that "one who hears will only pass the orders. Because, the Ld. Forum has also failed to understand that basically all the respondents are "service providers" as they are giving smart card type driving license to the citizens by charging a particular fee for the product of smart card.
18. Because the forum has failed to understand that the appellant is a consumer as per section 2 (d) of Consumer charging the particular fees for giving particular services of smart card type understand that respondents are undoubtedly giving services to the complainant of providing smart card driving license" for a consideration of Rs. 250/- and thus were service providers. The Forum nowhere in its Judgment ever recorded any finding or observations that the respondents are "not the service providers even after charging consideration"
19. The Forum has also failed to make any observations on the fact that in spite of having statutory obligations of providing smart card type driving license to the complainant the said statutory obligation is a service as defined under section 2 (o). The forum has failed to give any valid reasons for the purpose of dismissing the contention of the complaint that "selling smart card type driving license" becomes service under section 2 (0) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
20. The Forum has completely erred in denying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs N.K. Gupta (1994-AIR-SCW-97) committed blatant error by holding that the said case law is only for the purpose of construction of houses and delivery of plots and therefore the said judgment is not applicable in the case of complainant, The legislative intention is clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The legislature expanded the meaning of the word "service" in Section 2 (o) to even such facilities as are available to a consumer in connection with banking, financing etc. Each of these activities are discharged both by statutory and private bodies. In absence of any indication, express or implied, there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the statute are beyond purview of the Act. The test is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed is service or even facility.
21. The Act requires provider of service to be more objective and caretaking. It is still more in public services. When private undertakings are taken over by the Government or corporations are created to discharge what is otherwise State's function, one of the inherent objectives of such social welfare measure is to provide better, efficient and cheaper services to the people. Any attempt, therefore, to exclude services offered by statutory or official bodies to the common man would be against the provisions of the Act and spirit behind it. A Government or semi- Government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service.
22. Therefore it is quite clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hold that even "statutory authorities or Government bodies" are included in the ambit of service providers. Because the forum has also failed to understand the explicit order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority's case cited supra regarding "Services" offered by statutory authorities. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also discussed in the same case that the definition of section 2 (o) and gave variety of meaning to the word "services".
23. The respondent no. 1 and 2 no doubt are government authorities and doing their statutory duties but it is true that they are also giving services to the common man by selling the smart card type driving license for consideration of Rs. 200/-. The said service is chargeable and the revenue is shared between respondents. The Respondents no. 01 and 02 have also appointed respondent no. 03 and out sourced the job of making the smart card type of license for which handsome consideration of Rs. 87.30 /- per smart card is given to respondent no. 03. The respondent no. 02 has also made a specific contract with the respondent no. 03 for providing the prescribed services. The forum has completely failed in indicating this relationship between the respondents and also failed miserably to make out the exceptional case to the respondents to escape from the settled position of law as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority case. (Supra) Because the Ld. Forum has also miserably failed to give any reasoning regarding delivery of the license by the respondents due to "undue delay" of more than 30 days to the appellant by violating the prescribed check time limit of "seven days" as stipulated in the Citizens Charter published by the state transport department u/s 4 of RTI Act 2005. The Ld. Forum has failed to understand that the state has framed a time bound policy to give the services to the citizens.
24. Similarly the Respondent No.1 and 2 demonstrated delay for the issuance of smart card and also submitted that while depositing the fee of smart card the Respondent No.2 issue the receipt and same can be used to the police officials who prevent from plying the vehicle as well as also submitted the loss demonstrated by the appellant in his complaint is remote and vexatious. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for any claim as narrated by the complainant in his complaint.
25. The Learned District Commission while deciding the said complaints specifically held that i.e. the complainant is not the consumer of O.P. and therefore, the Learned District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and for the same the Learned District Commission has considered the authorities filed by the O.P. and not considered the authorities filed by the Complainant. As the Learned District Commission dismissed the said complaint on the basis of jurisdiction of District Commission and therefore, rest of the issues are not decided. O.P. further contended that on the basis of the averment there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. as well as there is no unfair trade practice committed by the Respondents. The Learned Trial Court considered the authorities while deciding the complaint and thereby came to the conclusion that the present matter does not come under the jurisdiction of District Commission. Similarly, the O.P. No. 1 and 2 are also relied on the following authorities-
Judgment passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.629/2019, RTO Vs. Mitthu Salunke and one, decided on 21/10/2021. In the present matter the State Commission specifically held in para no. 25 that the amount submitted by Complainant as a fee not as consideration towards services to be rendered by appellant No.2 not covering under the terms services or service provider and further held that the complaint against appellant RTO is not maintainable u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Judgment passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai Bench at Aurangabad in First Appeal No.537/1999, Dy. RTO, Dhule Vs. Sunil Kisan Patil and one, decided on 18/10/2005. The State Commission specifically held that the services rendered by RTO cannot be said to be commercial in nature. No consideration was paid to the RTO. RTO does not render any service in pursuance of commercial transaction. In RTO Vs Sudhir Suryabhan Hadke and Others Judgement passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai Bench at Nagpur in F.A. No. RBT/A/18/153 decided on dtd. 03/02/2023 held that RTO does not come under the CP Act.
26. Authorities cited by the appellant. 1. Assistant provident fund commissioner Raichur vs Vasant Madhav Kerur, The counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority ratio in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, however, its relevant portion goes against which runs as follows:-
"We cannot accept the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering "service" within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the Scheme discharges statutory functions for running the Scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the "service" under the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity. It cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the "Scheme" were not "Service"
or that the benefits under the Scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of "Consumer" under the Act includes not only the person who hires the "Services" for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the Scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiaries within the meaning of that word used in the definition of "consumer"
27. Regional Passport Officer Bangalore vs Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath Admittedly, there was negligence on the part of the Passport Officer in not signing the passport at the time of its issuance. Visa was also issued on the said passport. The complainant reached the Bombay Airport for her onward journey to Dubai. At the airport, this lacuna came to light and the airport authorities asked her to go back and, hence, she lost the opportunity of going abroad which was sponsored by the company. Hence, the complaint. On the basis of the said passport, if the complainant had travelled outside the country, she would have been found guilty for various offences. Hence, Instead of travelling, she was required to approach the District Forum for this deficiency and negligence on the part of the concerned officer. The District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Against that order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra. The State Commission appreciated the evidence after verifying the passport, which was found to be without signature of the Passport Officer, and dismissed the Appeal. Against that order, this Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Passport Officer, while issuing the passport, was exercising sovereign function. He was discharging a statutory duty.
28. He further submitted that the officer was discharging his duties without recovering any fee and, therefore, this would not be a consume dispute. In our view, issuance or non-issuance of a passport may be statutory duty and may not be a consumer dispute but issuance of a invalid passport which is not signed by the Passport Officer, would b deficiency in service on the part of the concerned officer as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act which define 'deficiency'. It specifically provides that 'deficiency' means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, inadequacy in the nature and manner performance, which is required to be maintained under an law. Admittedly, the petitioner is charging fee for issuance of passport and hence, service is availed by paying fee. A passport, which is issued without the signature of the Competent Authority, is on the face of it is invalld which would have placed the complainant In a precarious position and she might have been hauled up for various offences if she had tried to go abroad or that passport. Such lapse amounts to a serious deficiency in discharge o duties, which is in the nature of rendering of service, hence, the complaint is maintainable. This Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
29. The Joint Sub Registrar, District Registrar's Office Shanmugapuram, Palani 2, Dindigul District. Vs TMT. Maragatham, W/o Rajendran Shanmugapuram, Palani M.B.SHAH, J. President held that The only question Involved in this Revision Petition is: Whether Joint Sub-Registrar of the District Registrar's Office can be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuing erroneous encumbrance certificate under the Rules framed by the State of Tamil Nadu under Registration Act, 1908? For the reasons recorded hereinafter we hold that the Joint Sub-Registrar or concerned officer could be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case of issuance of encumbrance certificate without noting all the relevant transfers, encumbrances or transactions with regard to immovable property. The reason is erroneous encumbrance certificate seriously prejudice the rights of the parties and increases litigations and disputes with regard to immovable property. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the registering officer where only performing statutory function while issuing encumbrance certificate and hence, for that the complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Fora. The state Commission allowed the appeal by observing that there was deficiency in service by the joint Sub Registrar in issuing erroneous encumbrance certificate hence opposite party filed the revision petition.
The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Joint Registrar/Joint Sub- Registrar is performing statutory duty while issuing encumbrance certificate, and, therefore, no action under the Consumer Protection Act, would lie against him as it is not a service for consideration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court [k1] in S.P.Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, (1996) 1 SCC 573. As against this, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Complainant that the Joint Sub-Registrar while issuing Encumbrance Certificate is not only discharging his statutory duty but is performing function which is in the nature of service for consideration, namely, prescribed fees. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Madras in R. Ravichandran Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Madras & Ors., in W.P. No. 15097 of 1996 and W.M.P. No. 24025 of 1995 decided on 3rd October, 2001, reported as [2002-2-L.W.590] and also Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243.
30. Firstly, it is to be emphasized that whether a person is consumer or not would depend not upon whether the functions discharged by the person are statutory functions, but would depend upon its nature and the consideration payable thereof. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority the Court held that even if a person is discharging statutory functions, that would not be a ground for holding that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable. The Court has observed: "The legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it is service or even facility". Hence, the question, in the present case, is to be decided on the basis of the nature of the duty and function, and also whether the performance of such duty or function is a service or facility for consideration.
31. Now, we would consider the ratio of the decision rendered In S.P. Goel's case (Supra) wherein the Apex Court considered the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, Indian Registration Act and Stamp Act. In that case, Mr.S.P.Goel presented a document for registration, contending that it was a "will" executed in his favour, as well as in favour of his wife by one P.N.Mishra, before the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, who instead of registering the document impounded it as he was of the opinion that it was not a will but a deed of conveyance which was not duly stamped. He, therefore, sent the document in original to Collector of Stamps for action under Section 40 of the Stamps Act. While the matter was pending before the Collector of Stamps, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, for various reliefs including the direction for registration of document as "will" as also for supply of certified copy thereof, besides compensation for harassment since 1987.
32. The Registration Act, as also the Stamp Act, are meant primarily to augment the State revenue by prescribing the stamp duty on various categories of instruments or documents and the procedure for collection of stamp duty through distress or other means including criminal prosecution as non-payment of stamp duty has been constituted as an offence. Payment of registration fee or registration charges including charges for issuing certified copies of the registered documents or fee for the inspection of various registers or documents kept in the Registrars or Sub-Registrars office etc. constitute another component of State revenue. In this situation, therefore, the person who presents a document for registration and pays the stamp duty on it or the registration fee, does not become a consumer nor do the officers appointed to implement the provisions of the two Acts render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. They only perform their statutory duties (some of which, as earlier indicated, are judicial or, at least, quasi-judicial in nature) to raise and collect the State revenue which is a part of the sovereign power of the State.
33. Thereafter, the Court referred to its earlier decision in case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 and observed as under:
"....... We also reiterate that a Government officer may be held liable in tort if, in the discharge of his official administrative duties, he acts maliciously or with oblique motive or mala fide but the position in the instant case is different in many vital respects".
34. The judgment in S.P. Goel's case (Supra) which is passed by the Apex Court and Is sought to be relied upon is only with regard to registration of documents, which is a statutory function and mandatory requirement for effective transfer of Immovable property. In that case the Registrar was exercising his quasi- judicial function of deciding whether the so called 'Will' was a 'Conveyance Deed' or not. In his opinion it was a Conveyance Deed and, therefore, he impounded the same and sent it to the Collector, an Authority under the Stamp Act, for appropriate valuation was challenged before the Consumer Fora and in that context the Court held that statutory/sovereign function under the Act. it was a statutory/ sovereign function under the act. Secondly, even S.P.Goel's case, it has been made clear that if there is deficiency in service by an act which is not bona fide or which is malicious, the Officer will not be protected. This view is taken on the basis of the decision rendered in Lucknow Development Authority (Supra). If there is total negligence in discharge of duties it would amount to malice in law or in any case it cannot be termed as bona fide act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that in cas of deficiency in service in issuing erroneous and defective encumbrance certificate, the concerned officer including the Joint Sub-Registrar would be liable for deficiency in service and could be proceeded under the Consumer Protection, 1986. Hence, we confirm the order passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu and dismiss Petition.
35. 4. AVINASH VINAYAK PRABHUNE, Nagpur Versus 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER NAGPUR(CITY), GIRIPETH, AMRAVATI ROAD, NAGPUR 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ADMINISTRATIVE BLDG, 4TH FLOOR, GOVT.COLONY, OP. DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR GARDEN, BANDRA(EAST), MUMBAI-400 051. In this case it is submitted that there is no excuse on the part of the respondent for non issuance of renewed motor driving license for the appellant in term of five years, which was normally extended. The respondent could not allow the term of one year for renewal of the motor driving license defaulting on its normal course of issuance of the motor driving license for five years. There was no excuse for causing delay to issue motor driving license beyond 10 days from the date the appellant filling the Form No. 9 and depositing fee of sum of Rs. 300/-.
36. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Now GLADA) VS Vidya Chetal (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 83: (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 274: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1193. In the present Reference, overruling Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479. It is held that Sovereign functions like judicial decision-making, Imposition of tax, policing, etc., strictly understood, qualify for exemption from the Consumer Protection Act, but the welfare activities through economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies are covered under the jurisdiction of the consumer forums. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are subunits/wings which are providing services/supply goods for a consideration and they are severable, then they can be considered to come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
37. There is distinction between statutory liability which arise generally such as a tax, and those that may arise out of a specific relationship such as that between a service provider and a consumer. For instance, a tax is a mandatory imposition by a public authority for public purpose enforceable by law; and is not imposed with respect to any special benefit conferred, as consideration, on the taxpayer. There is no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority. However, the above is not the only form of dues charged by a statutory authority. It is a clearly established principle that certain statutory dues, such as fees, can arise out of a specific relation. Such statutory dues might be charged as a quid pro quo for a privilege conferred or for a service rendered by the authority. There are exactions which are for the common burden, like taxes, there are dues for a specific purpose, like cess, and there are dues in lieu of a specific service rendered. Therefore, it is clear that not all statutory dues/exactions are amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum, rather only those exactions which are exacted for a service rendered, would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum provided that there is a "deficiency in service", etc.
38. Thus, if the statutory authority, other than the core sovereign duties, is providing service, which is encompassed under the Consumer Protection Act, then, unless any statute exempts, or provides for immunity against deficiency in service, or specifically provides for an alterative forum, the consumer forums would continue to have the jurisdiction to deal with the same. The fact that an authority does have the power to levy a certain statutory fee, does not by itself does not prohibit the consumer forums from evaluating the legality of such exactions or fulfilment of conditions by the authority before such exaction. In broad terms, non-fulfilment of conditions or standards required, amounts to "deficiency in services" under the Consumer Protection Act. On perusal of the impugned precedent, it may be noted that it does not provide clear-cut reasoning for the view held by the Court, except to the extent of pointing out that statutory obligations are not encompassed under the Act. Such broad proposition necessarily required further elaboration, as there is a possibility of over-inclusivity. Further, there is no gainsaying that all statutory obligations are not sovereign functions. Although all sovereign functions/services are regulated and performed under constitutional/statutory instruments, yet there are other functions, though might be statutory, but cannot be called as sovereign functions. These sovereign functions do not contain the consumer-service provider relationship in them and are not done for a consideration. Moreover, we need to be mindful of the fact that sovereign functions are undergoing a radical change in the face of privatisation and globalisation. India being a welfare State, the sovereign functions are also changing. We may note that the Government in order to improve the quality of life and welfare of its citizens, has undertaken many commercial adventures.
39. Sovereign functions like judicial decision-making, imposition of 17 tax, policing, etc., strictly understood, qualify for exemption from the Act, but the welfare activities through economic adventures undertaken by the Government or statutory bodies are covered under the jurisdiction of the consumer forums. Even in departments discharging sovereign functions, if there are subunits/wings which are providing services/supply goods for a consideration and they are severable, then they can be considered to come within the ambit of the Act.
40. Under our Constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the statute like the commission or the courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law. Therefore, when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation." comes under the ambit of "service".
41. We do understand that the confusion, which arose from the aforesaid situation, is that the authority does have the power to levy certain statutory fee. However, that itself does not prohibit the consumer forums from evaluating the legality of such exactions or fulfilment of conditions by the authority before such exaction. In broad terms, non-fulfilment of conditions or standards required, amounts to "deficiency in services" under the Act. Having said that, out of abundant caution, we note that the legality does not extend to the challenge of vires of a rule prescribing such fee. Such contentions are best agitated before the constitutional courts.
42. On a different note, if the statutory authority, other than the core sovereign duties, is providing service, which is encompassed under the Act, then, unless any statute exempts, or provides for immunity, for deficiency in service, or specifically provides for an alternative forum, the consumer forums would continue to have the jurisdiction to deal with the same. 10 We need to caution against over-inclusivity and the tribunals need to satisfy the ingredients under Consumer Protection Laws, before exercising the jurisdiction. Moreover, we also need to note that the distinction between statutory liability which arise generally such as a tax, and those that may arise out of a specific relationship such as that between a service provider and a consumer, was not considered by this Court in Sunita², For instance, a tax is a mandatory imposition by a public authority for public purpose enforceable by law; and is not imposed with respect to any special benefit conferred, as consideration, on the taxpayer. There is no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority
43. Gaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singn Civil Appeal No. 7173 of 2002 with Nos. 7391 of 2002 with SLPS (C) Nos. 4853-54 of 2004 etc., decided on March 17, 2004 Facts individually, the Supreme Court Held: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities. Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office l.e. an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to mala fide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine the amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of the law.
44. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. Award of compensation must be under different separate heads and must vary from case to case depending on the facts of each case. What is being awarded is compensation i.e. a recompense for the loss or injury. It therefore necessarily has to be based on a finding of loss or injury and has to correlate with the amount of loss or injury. Thus the Forum or the Commission must determine that there has been deficiency in service and/or misfeasance in public office which has resulted in loss or injury. No hard and first rule can be laid down.
45. Respondent relied on the following Judgement to support its contention in the case of S.P. Goel Vs Collector of Stamps. Delhi (reported in 1995 Law Suit (SC) 1234) In that case also one Consumer complaint had me to be filed regarding deficiency in service against the Collector under the Registration Act as well as Stamp Act on the ground of negligence of duty. In that context the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt with this aspect as well as also dealt with two defences relating to Consumer and Service Provider and has also referred to the judgment in the case of Lucknow Development Authority V/s NK Gupta, (reported in AIR 94 SG 787 However, while dealing with the dispute in that ease it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Collector was performing sovereign functions while exercising powers under the Stamp Act as well as under the Registration Act. It was observed that "Registration as well as Ste Act are meant primarily to augment the State revenue and the person who presents a document for registration does not become a Consumer nor officers appointed render any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act as they only perform their statutory duties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the word Service cannot he expanded to mean service rendered by a Sovereign authority.
46. It is observed that the Central Government has not mandated buying of such smart card type driving license in "Form No- 07" to the citizen of this country but all the respondents in convenience which other are found to have been involved in "unfair trade practice" of forcible selling of the smart card type driving license to the citizens in the state of Maharashtra including the appellant. The Forum has also failed to make any observations on the fact that in spite of having statutory obligations of providing smart card type driving license to the complainant the said statutory obligation is a "Service" as defined under section 2 (o). It is pertinent to note here that in absence of any indication, express or implied, there is no reason to hold that authorities created by the statute are beyond purview of the Act. The test is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body but whether the nature of the duty and function performed is service or even facility. Any attempt, therefore, to exclude services offered by statutory or official bodies to the common man would be against the provisions of the Act and spirit behind it. A Government or semi-Government body or a local authority is as much amenable to the Act as any other private body rendering similar service.
47. Therefore it is quite clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hold that even "statutory authorities or Government bodies" are included in the ambit of service providers. The Forum nowhere in its Judgment ever recorded any finding or observations that the respondents are "not the service providers even after charging consideration"
48. We find much force in the contention of the Complainant/Appellant relying on Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 83 (Supra) In the present Reference, overruling Sunita (2005) 2 SCC 479. It is held though all sovereign functions/services are regulated and performed under constitutional/statutory instruments, yet there are functions, though statutory cannot be called as sovereign functions.
49. In the light of above submission we are of the considered view that Respondent No. 1 and 3 are indulged in the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the Complainant and Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation. Opposite party No.2 Transport Commissioner had no direct role, it acted only in supervisory /administrative capacity, hence no deficiency can be attributed. Therefore Complaint is dismissed against O.P. No.2
50. Hence we pass the following order-
//ORDER//
i. Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
ii. The impugned order and Judgement dated 25/07/2024 passed by the
learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Case No. CC/228/2018 is hereby set aside and the complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby partly allowed.
iii. Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
iv. Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment caused to the Complainant and v. Opposite party No. 1 and 3 are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the litigation.
vi. No order against Opposite Party No. 2.
vii. Copy of the Order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
[k1]
..................J
KALYANI KAPSE
PRESIDING MEMBER
..................J
SHAILA D. WANDHARE
MEMBER