Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/18/2017

Sri Satyananda Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The R.T.A. (Regional Transport Authority), Keonjhar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Muralidhar Patra & Associates

18 Aug 2017

ORDER

              IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

 KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 18 OF 2017

 

   Sri Satyananda Das, aged about 48 years,

   S/o: Haladhar Das, L.I.C. Colony,

   Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar,

   Odisha-758001 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Complainant

                                         Versus

 

1. The R.T.A. (Regional Transport Authority), Keonjhar

    O/O the Regional Transport Office,

    At/P.O: Keonjhargarh,

    P.S: Town, Dist.: Keonjhar

    Odisha-758001

2. The Collector & District Magistrate, Keonjhar,

    At/P.O: Keonjhargarh,

    P.S: Town, Dist.: Keonjhar

    Odisha-758001  …………………………………………………………………………………………………... Op. Parties

    Present:

     Shri Purusottam Samantara,President

     Smt. B.Giri Member(W)

 

      Advocate for complainant- Sri Muralidhar Patra & associate

              Advocate for O.P1& O.P2-  Sri Srutikanta Sahu  (G.P)

 

 

  Date of filing  - 27.03.2017                                                                                  Date of order-18.08.2017

 

 

1.Sri Purusottam Samantra-The set up of the Complainant is that on dt 06.01.2017 in procuring a certified copy of R.C of vehicle bearing Regd No- OR-09Q-0263  deposited a sum of  Rs200/- against required fees, as demanded.

 

2. The Complainant  stated the required fees of Rs200/-(two hundred only) as demanded has no legal sanction, as the standing rule 30 of O.M.V rule 1993 has made provision of Rs 4/-(four) as fees against issuance of certified copy.

 

 

3. It is also averred in depositing Rs 200/- vide MR No- AC1461366, dt 19.02.2017, Which is not made amendment in state rules and the amendment made under rule 81 of Central Motor Vehicle Rule-1989 as advanced by the concerned authority is illegal, arbitrary and unilateral, without sanction of the legislative procedure  hence illegal and violative.

 

 

4.Further stated the O.Ps basis of amended fee structure under rule 81 of C.M.V rule 1989 vide Govt of India Road Transport and Highways Notification No-GSR 1183(E)dt 29.12.2016 relating to Registration of motor vehicles with allied matters which cannot yield to the rule 30 of OMV rules 1993 unless until same is amended on state level, although the matter is admitted by RTA Keonjhar, still prevailing upon to collect the fees on higher side is no more granted or allowed with legislative authorization in implementing in amended way .

 

 

5. The collection of Rs 200/- by way of fees is deliberate harassment & deficient in service. Prayed to return the excess fee collected and recuperate with compensation & cost. Made reliance with original receipt, notice, letter and authority & excerpts from statute in photo copies and affidavit.

 

 

 6. In pursuant to notice, the O.P contested the case in admission that the complainant has deposited Rs 200/- as per amended provision of rule 81 of C.M.V rule-1989 vide govt of India notification  dt 29.12.2016,vide receipt No- 1461366. besides it is further admitted this O.P-1 is the service providing Authority to the public so far as transport matter is concerned.

 

 

 

7. Further made contention that the allegation as made is based on erroneous impression. The latest amendment effected from 29.12.2016 and the follow up amendment at state level requires time and has not taken shape in line with the central govt amendment, so no illegality or arbitrariness found and no deficiency of service emerge to sue.

 

 

8. Also contended, it is not correct that the amended provision relates to only “Registration of vehicles” the certificate copy of RC is a part of registration chapter as item - 15 of the notifications clearly speaks, Any application not covered under entries at serial 1 to 4 above, Rs 200/- shall be levied, Which requires a reference to section - 65 of the M.V Act 1989.

 

 

9. Further contended, the complainant is not consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Even no harassment inflicted, the petition is baseless & has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Relied  on  Gazette Notification Copy.

 

 

 

10. Heard the learned counsels at boths’ end and perused the record.

 

11. On the set out of submission, no dispute exists on the payments made and the dispute remain on the part of quantum of fees to be collected in issuance of R.C certified Copy. It is admitted. Money receipt pertaining to MR No-AC1461366 has been issued against collection of Rs 200/-.

 

12.The complainant submitted collection of Rs 200/-as fees towards issuance of certified copy against the vehicle Regd No-OR-09Q-0263 amounts to illegal as the provision and terms laid down under rule - 30 “Orissa Motor  Vehicle rule 1993 has not been amended  in obligation to Section 65 and 212 of Central Motor Vehicle Act,1988 .

 

13. Same is controverted in substantative evidence by the O.P that the fees structure prescribed under rule-81 of the CMV rules -1989 has been amended  and necessary gazette notifications No-GSR-1183(E) dt 29.12.2016 has been effected, above all the registration includes allied matters, So MV act being a Central  Act will prevail upon, irrespective OMV rules amendment made or not.

 

14. On the issue, the petitioner submitted under the given circumstance, the O.Ps action is arbitrary, violative, transgression and not having authoritative substance to act or to collect .

 

15. On the contention raised, we found in depositing Rs 200/- as consideration the petitioner is a Consumer within the ambit of the Act and provision of the term 2(d) (ii). So the case is amply maintainable.

 

16. Further contending that the exhaustive requirement under 212 of Motor Vehicle Act can be get set aside as it laid down. Even the O.P admits requirement of the same section, which needs time.

 

17.Further to say, it is come across, there is no uniformity in collection fees relating to certified copies among the districts or within the state RTA, the RTA Keonjhar  without any legislative sanction collecting the fees under  the shelter of  central notification & making the section 212 redundant, pleonastic, obsolete or deemed repealed at the hands of the state authorities.

 

18. On the contentious issue of central rule and state rule as raised & the references that we preferred is hereby underlined with.

 

19. On the above noted contentious issue of amendment of central rule and non amendment of state rules, we made reference a judgment pronounced on 03.04.2017 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras relating to W.P No- 1598/1067 of 2017. Concerning the specific notifications –G.S.R 1183(E)              dated 29.12.2016.- Chennai City Auto Ootunangal Sangam VS secretary Ministry of Road Transport & Highways & Another.

 

The relevant excerpts & paragraphs lines as follows.

 

“No tax can be imposed by any bye-law or rule or regulation unless the state under which the subordinate legislation is made specifically authorizes the imposition even if it is assumed that the power to tax can be delegated to the executive, The basis of the statutory power conferred by the statute cannot be transgressed by rule making authority, A rule making authority has no plenary power. It has to act within the limits of the power granted to it” .

 

Para-10       _________                       __________              ______________                            __________

 

                        The levy of additional fee in the nature of a penalty will only compound this prejudice. We cannot lose sight of the position that the service rendered by the authorities’ u/s 211 of the M.V Act will remain the same irrespective of the period of delay in compliance of the statutory provision by the petitioner.

 

                                                      On the other hand, the complainant  also rely on the judgment Balasore Bus Association Vs state of Orissa- AIR  2006  ori163 the relevant portion is underlined :-

 

                          As required u/s 212 of the said Act Preliminary notifications No-10595.          Dt  22.08.1998 was published on official gazette on 25.08.1998 inviting objections and suggestion were to be made within 15 days from the date of publication. During this period the state Govt received 35 objections and after considering the same, published the final notification No-16000.                   Dt  25.11.1998 revising both application and permit fees.

 

                                                   Although the case supra has been dismissed, but it is pertinent in   establishes that the procedure as contemplated under act & rule is exhaustively amended & implemented and also made in application by the state but where as in the present case the legislative intent under the section 212 as admitted not ensured so by passing the section and its detailed requirements as contemplated therein & non observation thereof  amounts to illegality, ultra-vires and transgression having no iota of legal sanctity being unwantedly nurtured.

 

                                             In view of the above made discussion we observe although central rule has been amended, unless until same substance under the notification get approved by state legislation, the collection, imposition and application is complete void as the above authorities observation & finding shows. Without the state amendments consistent with the contemplated requirement under section 212 get observed, any implementation partly or wholly of central amendment by the delegated executive authority is a case of transgression, ultra-vires and not backed by legal authorization. The delegated authority has acted, imposed and levied inflated fees in exercise of power beyond the parameters that they not yet vested with, Thus committed fault under any law for the time being inforce & in relation to rendering spurious service under C.P Act for which liable to pay.

 

 

 

 

 

O-R-D-E-R

 

1. The O.Ps are hereby directed not to collect the revised fees (as per CMV amended rules) unless & until same laid down before the state legislation’s sanction and amended approval within the provisioned requirements.

 

2. The O.Ps are also directed to return the excessive of Rs 196/- (one hundred ninety six only)  to the petitioner along with a sum Rs 100/-( one hundred) towards the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained, within 30 days of this order in depositing before this forum, failing a penalty of       Rs 2/- per day will accrue till complete realisation.

 

     (iii ) The matter be reported in the notice board for public awareness in RTA, Keonjhar

 

     (iv)   No order as to cost.

 

     Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

     File be consigned to record room.

     Pronounced, 18^th August 2017     

 

     I agree             

                                    

                                    

  

   (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                            (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

    DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar  

 

   

 

                                            

                                                               Dictated & Corrected by

 

 

 

   (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                           (President)

                                                                    DCDRF, Keonjhar