State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Asst. R. T. O., Ratnagiri Etc. vs Bhalchandra Dattatray Sovani on 12 January, 2023
A/22/37
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Appeal No.A/22/37
(Arisen out of order dated 18/11/2021 passed in Complaint No.59 of 2018 by the District
Commission, Ratnagiri)
1. Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Ratnagiri, at Kuvarbav, Ratnagiri.
2. Viddulata Sukhdev Karade,
Cashier, Assistant Regional Transport Office, ....... Appellant(s)
Ratnagiri.
Versus
Shri Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sovani,
R/o. Sovani Chal, Near Cottage Hospital,
Rajapur, District Rajapur.
.........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Justice S.P. Tavade - President
A.Z. Khwaja - Judicial Member
For the Appellant(s) : Advocate Ajay Pawar
For the Respondent(s) : Advocate Smt.Asmita Sovani.
ORDER
(12/01/2023)
Per Hon'ble Mr.A.Z. Khwaja - Judicial Member:
(1) Appellant - Assistant Regional Transport Officer has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18/11/2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri in Consumer Complaint No.59 of 2018 whereby the Consumer complaint filed by respondent - Bhalchandra Dattatraya 1 A/22/37 Sovani, resident of Rajapur came to be allowed and the appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment as well as Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation. Appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature.
(2) Short facts giving rise to the present appeal may be stated as under:
Complainant - Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sovani claims to be resident of Rajapur, District Ratnagiri. In the month of November, 2015. Complainant had purchased one car bearing Registration No.MH-04-DR- 7990 from Mr.Tukaram Lad of Mumbai. Mr.Tukaram Lad had also given no objection certificate for transfer of the Car in the office of the R.T.O. After purchase of the car the complainant submitted all papers to the office of R.T.O. and the office of R.T.O. asked the complainant to obtain LPG kit testing certificate which was also obtained by the complainant on 04/05/2016. The complainant went again to the office of the R.T.O. and the Office of R.T.O. asked the complainant to pay necessary fees for transfer of vehicle. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.250/- towards fees for transfer of the Car and the same was paid in the name of the original Owner but after payment of the necessary fees Car was not transferred in the name of the complainant. On 28/11/2017 the complainant again went to the office of the R.T.O. and paid sum of Rs.200/- towards third party insurance but the receipt was also given in the name of original owner although the name of complainant should have been recorded. Complainant was continuously pursuing office of R.T.O. Even after submitting documents and necessary fees the R.C. Book was not transferred in the name of the complainant. On 20/04/2018 the complainant again went to the office of R.T.O. and the office of the 2 A/22/37 R.T.O. asked the complainant to again pay fees of Rs.200/- for R.C. Book, Rs.300/- fees for transfer, Rs.50/- for postal fees and Rs.100/- by way of penalty. Complainant in all paid Rs.650/- on 04/05/2016 but the office of the R.T.O. did not transfer the Car in his name. The complainant waited again for the receipt of the R.C. Book. Complainant has alleged that though he had already paid the necessary fees on 04/05/2016 the complainant had not received R.C. Book and ultimately the R.C. Book was received on 12/06/2018 after the period of more than two years. Complainant was required to approach Office of R.T.O. time and again, due to which he suffered mental harassment and also was required to bear expenses. Complainant has alleged that due to huge delay in the transfer of the Car in his name the opponent, namely Assistant Regional Transport Officer had committed deficiency in service and so, the complainant was compelled to file the present Consumer complaint.
(3) After filing of complaint notice was issued to Assistant Regional Transport Officer and he appeared in response to the same and also filed written version on record. At the outset, the opponent has taken a specific plea that the Consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable in law as there was no relationship of 'Consumer and Service Provider' between the complainant and Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The opponent has contended that the Regional Transport Officer was performing duty under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and there was no relationship as service provider. Opponent has admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle and on 04/05/2016 he also paid Rs.250/- as fees by filling necessary form as required. The opponent has contended that though the complainant had 3 A/22/37 paid necessary fees of Rs.250/- the complainant had not complied with the supply of other necessary documents which were demanded by the office within a period of thirty days and so the process of registration could not be started. The complainant was himself responsible for not getting R.C. Book. The complainant supplied necessary documents by letter dated 20/04/2018 and thereafter, the process was completed on 04/06/2018 and Smart Card was also provided to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and so the complaint was not tenable in law and needs to be dismissed.
(4) Learned District Consumer Commission, Ratnagiri, thereafter went through the evidence as well as the documents filed by the complainant as well as the opponent. The District Consumer Commission also went through the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties as well as the citations filed on record. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned District Consumer Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of mental and physical harassment caused to the complainant along with interest and also Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation by judgment and order dated 18/11/2021, which is challenged in the present appeal.
(5) After filing of the appeal due notice was issued to the respondent/original complainant. We have also heard learned Advocate Ajay Pawar for the appellant and learned advocate appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the documents, copies of which are on record. On the basis of the facts stated above following points arise for our determination and we have given our findings against them for the reasons given thereafter:4
A/22/37 Sr.No. Points Finding
(i) Whether the complaint filed by the : No. complainant was maintainable in law?
(ii) Whether the judgment and order : Yes.
passed by the District Consumer
Commission, Ratnagiri dated
18/11/2021 in Consumer
Complaint No.59 of 2018 suffers
from any illegality or infirmity
and needs any interference?
(iii) What order? : As per final
order.
REASONS:
(6) Prior to dealing with the rival contentions and also the question of tenability, it would be relevant to narrate certain undisputed facts. It is not in dispute that the Complainant - Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sovani had purchased Car bearing Registration No.MH-04-DR-7990 from the earlier owner - Tukaram Lad in the month of November, 2015 and thereafter had applied for transfer of his name as Owner of the vehicle to the office of Assistant Regional Transfer Officer. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had deposited necessary fees of Rs.250/- on 04/05/2016.
But, even after submitting the documents and paying the necessary fees his name was not transferred as owner. It is not in dispute that name of the complainant was recorded as owner after lapse of more than two years and Smart Card appearing the name of the complainant was handed over to the complainant on 12/06/2018. Complainant has come with the grievance that there was delay of more than two years in recording his 5 A/22/37 name as owner of the vehicle and the same amounted to deficiency in service as complainant claimed to be a Consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If we turn to the written version filed on record, the opponent, namely Assistant Regional Transport Officer has taken a preliminary objection that the complainant cannot claim to be a Consumer of the services rendered by the Government and there was no relationship as 'Consumer and Service Provider' between the complainant and the opponent - Assistant Regional Transport Officer and this very question falls for our determination in the present appeal.
(7) We have heard learned Advocate Pawar appearing for the appellant -
Assistant Regional Transport Officer and he has submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission has not appreciated this aspect in proper perspective and has given erroneous findings that the complainant was a 'Consumer' and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was 'service provider' and on the basis of this assumption has given findings. It is submitted by learned Advocate Mr.Pawar for the appellant that the complainant has wrongly proceeded on the assumption that since the complainant had paid fees of Rs.250/- to the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer can be termed as Service Provider. It is submitted by learned Advocate Shri Pawar that mere payment of fees cannot be the factor to come to the conclusion or to draw a conclusion that there was 'Consumer' and 'Service Provider' Relationship. It is submitted by Shri Pawar that the learned District Consumer Commission had lost sight of the fact that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was performing statutory functions as provided under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is 6 A/22/37 submitted that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer being a functionary of Government was performing sovereign functions and cannot be termed as 'Service Provider'.
(8) We have heard learned Advocate for the Respondent and she has submitted that the complainant was a 'Consumer' and there was 'Consumer' and 'Service Provider' relationship between the parties.
(9) Now in view of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant it has to be examined as to whether the complainant can be termed as a 'Consumer' and opponent office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer can be termed as a 'Service Provider'. For this purpose it would be relevant to turn to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which are very much relevant in the present case. If we turn to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the same would clearly show that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was also a person designated to perform certain functions as laid down in the Motor Vehicles Act.
(10) During the course of arguments it is submitted that the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was performing sovereign functions. It is also submitted that the Office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer has prescribed registration charges as well as the registration fees for the purpose of registering the Car in the name of the owner and this is also a fact which goes to show that the functions performed by the Regional Transport Officer are sovereign functions prescribed as per the statute, namely Motor Vehicles Act. On this aspect learned advocate Shri Ajay Pawar for the appellant has heavily relied upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Goyal V/s. Collector of 7 A/22/37 Stamps and in the case of Chairman Thiruvallur Transport Corporation v/s. Consumer Protection Council (reported in 1995 LawSuit(SC) 206) as well as one judgment of Orisa High Court in the case of Regional Transport Officer, Dhenkanal V/s Arun Kumar Behera and Others, dated 05/02/2020 in W.P.(C) No.15884 of 2005. We have gone through the judgment of the Ho'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Goel V/s. Collector of Stamps, Delhi (reported in 1995 LawSuit(SC) 1234). In that case also one Consumer complaint had come 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 SC 787). However, while dealing with the dispute in that case 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 Stamp 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 be expanded to mean service rendered by a Sovereign authority.'' (11) Further in the case of Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation V/s Consumer Protection Council, (reported in 1995 LawSuit(SC) 206), the Hon'b le Supreme Court has also observed that the compensation 8 A/22/37 arising out of Motor Accident cannot be dealt with under the Consumer Protection Act. We find that similar observations have also been made in the case of Regional Transport Officer, Dhenkanal V/s. Arun Kumar Behera and Others, in W.P.(C) No.15884 of 2015, by the Orissa High Court, Cuttack, on which reliance is placed.
(12) Apart from the aforesaid judgments learned advocate for the appellant has also relied upon the judgments delivered by Maharashtra State Commission, Circuit Bench Aurangabad as well as Nagpur Circuit Bench, wherein similar observations have been made. In aforesaid both judgments the said Consumer Commissions were dealing with the Consumer complaints filed against the Regional Transport Authority. In the case of Ravindrasingh Avtar Singh Bhasin V/s. The Regional Transport Authority, in Complaint Case No.CC/16/54 similar question was dealt with by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench Nagpur and it was observed that the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer and there is no relationship as 'Consumer' and 'Service Provider' between the complainant and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Here in the present case also we find that the facts are quite similar as the present complainant had submitted an application to the office of Assistant Regional Transport Officer for registering his name as Owner and had also paid necessary fees for that purpose. We are clearly of the view that the fees paid by the complainant to the office of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer cannot be termed as consideration. Further, in view of the judgments discussed earlier we are of the view that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was performing sovereign functions as provided by statute namely Motor Vehicles Act and so cannot be termed 9 A/22/37 as a Service Provider as defined u/sec 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act nor the complainant can be termed as a Consumer as defined u/sec 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. If we turn to the written version filed by the appellants, appellants have taken this preliminary objection, but, it appears that the learned District Consumer Commission has not appreciated the same in proper perspective and has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 18/11/2021 granting compensation to the complainant, which will have to be set aside by allowing the present appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
(ii) Order dated 18/11/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ratnagiri, is hereby set aside and complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iv) Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th January, 2023.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [A.Z. Khwaja] Judicial Member emp 10