West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/68/2022

SRI KOUSHIK SARKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.R.T.O. SILIGURI - Opp.Party(s)

JANMENJAY GANGULY

09 Nov 2023

ORDER

Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member

                          

FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT

This complaint under C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- A.R.T.O., Siliguri, Court More, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District – Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, West Bengal who did not appear before this Commission to proceed this case and hence, as per Order No. 22, dated 15.05.2023 the case runs ex- parte against the O.P.

 

                                    The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-

            The complainant stated in his plaint that on 29.04.2022 he applied for renewal of his driving licence but the O.P. office informed him that the said driving licence had expired on 13.10.2015 and for this reason an amount of Rs. 7, 500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) only should be paid to him as penalty but the driving licence which was issued to the complainant was denoting that the same was valid till 08.12.2021. The complainant also added that on checking All India Transport Website “SARATHI”, he found that the present status of the driving licence was active which needs renewal and the same was valid till 13.10.2015 and this information was not matching with the physical driving licence which the complainant has with him.

 

The complainant also stated that he sent e-mail to R.T.O., Darjeeling mentioning the entire issue as well as sent letter to the D.M., Darjeeling stating the matter and the O.P. office had called the complainant but could not give any suitable reply regarding the two different dates and even the mediation failed on 30.06.2022 at C.A. & F.B.P., Siliguri as the O.P. did not attend and having no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint for redressal of his legitimate grievances.      

 

                                                The prayers of complainant are as follows:

 

1. To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only for mental and physical harassment of the complainant.
2. To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for litigation expenses to the complainant.
3. Any other relief/ reliefs which the complainant is legally entitled to.

 

                                                 List of Documents filed by the complainant:

1. Photocopy of Driving Licence.
2. Photocopy of Renewal Receipt.
3. Photocopy of Learner Licence.
4. Photocopy of SARATHI Website data.
5. Photocopy of Letter to the R.T.O. and D.M.
6. Photocopy of Letter of Mediation.

            

The Opposite Party (O.P.)- A.R.T.O., Siliguri, Court More, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District – Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, West Bengal who did not appear before this Commission to proceed this case and hence, as per Order No. 22, dated 15.05.2023 the case runs ex- parte against the O.P.

.   

 

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and on perusal of the Complaint and documents filed by the party the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

 

 

Points for consideration

 

 

1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?

3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 

4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?

5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?

           

Decision with reasons:-

 

                        All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition filed by the party which is supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the party. We are also heard arguments of the complainant in full length.

The complainant resides in P.O. - Siliguri Bazar, P.S. - Siliguri, Dist. - Darjeeling. Thus, there is no doubt that this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction to decide this case.

 At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through his Written Deposition but also by producing documents.

 For just and proper adjudication of the case, Section 2(b), (c), (d), (g), (o) and Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are extracted hereunder:

"2.(b) "complainant" means-

(i) A consumer; or

(ii) Any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or

(iii) The Central Government or any State Government;

(iv) One or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest;

(v) In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative, who or which makes a complaint;

(c) "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that

(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by (any trader or service provider);

(ii) the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him suffer from one or more defects;

(iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;

(iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price-

(a) Fixed by or under any law for the time being in force;

(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;

(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;

(d) agreed between the parties;

(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used, are being-offered for sale to the public-

(A) in contravention of any standard relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force;

(B) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;

(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety; with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;

(d) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose;

(g) "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; (0) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;

 Jurisdiction of the District Forum.-(I) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees fifty lakhs.

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises."

 In order to satisfy the requirement of definition of "Consumer" as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there must be transaction for consideration under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the said Act. The definition also contemplates pre-expenses of a completed transaction of a sale and purchase. Therefore, the prime consideration is whether the petitioner is a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act so as to attract the provisions of the said Act, otherwise, the Act itself is not applicable. Consequence thereof, any order passed thereof is nullity in the eye of law. In view of the statutory provisions mentioned above, it is made clear that the Act is made to deal with the rights of the consumers wherein good or "services" have been defined under the said Act. Therefore, the forum created under the Consumer Protection Act cannot deal with the issue concerning the discharge of statutory functions by the statutory authorities.

 Issuing of licence is a matter under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rulles frame thereunder. Granting of licence is a statutory function conferred upon the statutory authority under the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.  Consequentially, if any tax has been deposited, in that case, the licence holder is obliged under law to deposit the same. Therefore, any person aggrieved by any omission or commission on the part of the licence granting authority can prefer appeal/ revision before the specified authority under the statue. The M. V. Act is a self contained code and provides appealable and revisable forums under the statue. If for any reason, the complainant could not be able to ply the vehicle, after having deposited tax for that purpose, and claimed for refund of the same, he has to approach the competent forum under the M. V. Act and Rules framed thereunder. The licence granting authority is not a service provider and, therefore, the person who makes an application to the said authority for licence is not a consumer. Refund of tax is governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. The complainant paid the tax in view of the statutory provisions governing the field. As such, issuing of licence and collection of tax/ fee from motor vehicles are all statutory in nature and the said functions are not discharged for consideration.

 

                        In the case of S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 839,

The Hon’ble Apex Court considered the provisions contained under the Registration Act and Stamp Act vis-à-vis Consumer Protection Act and, while construing the provisions contained under Section  2 (1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, held that the person presenting documents for registration is not the consumer within the ambit of the said Act. It is further held that the officers appointed under Registration Act and Stamp Act do not render any service within the meaning of the Act because they perform statutory duties which are at least quasi-judicial, consequentially, the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to the authorities under the Registration Act and Stamp Act.

            In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136,

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the transaction with State or its instrumentalities, the government servant is not covered by definition of "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d), and, therefore, the application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is not maintainable. Accordingly, their Lordships further held that jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon a court or tribunal by acquiescence or waiver, if it otherwise does not have jurisdiction and the object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to provide better protection of interest of consumers relating to goods, unfair trade practices, redressal against unscrupulous exploitation, right to consumer education etc.

 In Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority v. Vidya Chetal, (2019) 9 SCC 83, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph-21 held as follows:

"21. At the cost of repetition, we may note that those exactions, like tax and cess, levied as a part of common burden or for a specific purpose, generally may not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. However, those statutory fees, levied in lieu of service provided, may in the usual course be subject matter of consumer forum's jurisdiction provided that there is a "deficiency in service", etc."

In view of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable to the disputes of the present nature.

In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, AIR 1999 SC 22, the Hon’bel Apex Court in paragraph-15 held as follows:

"15. ...... But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement or any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged...."

Similar view has also been taken in Guruvayoor Devaswom managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546.

                                    In Pravat Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2015 (II) OLR 963,

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that even if there is availability of alternative remedy, since the court had considered the matter having no jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain such application because it goes to the root of the matter.

In this situation the Commission always follows the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and this Commission has no right to ignore the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India.

In view of the facts and circumstances, as well as proposition of law, as discussed above, the Consumer Case No. 68/ 2022 be and same is ex- parte against the Opposite Party, A.R.T.O., Siliguri, Court More, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District – Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, without cost.

 

Hence, it is,

 

 

ORDERED

 

That the Consumer Case No. 68/ 2022 be and same is dismissed on merit, against the Opposite Party, A.R.T.O., Siliguri, Court More, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri, District – Darjeeling, Pin Code- 734001, without cost.

 

            Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.