Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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 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'.