KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI
This is an appeal preferred u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the final order/judgement dated 09/11/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, in CC/68/2022.
The Appellant’s case in brief is that, the Appellant/Complainant had applied for renewal of his driving licence on 29/04/2022, but the Respondent/OP office, had informed the Appellant/Complainant, that the said driving licence had expired on 13/10/2015 and for that a penalty of Rs.7500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) only, had been quoted. The driving licence issued to the Appellant/Complainant showed that the same was valid up to 08/12/2021. On checking with All India Transport Website “Sarathi” the Appellant/Complainant found that the current status of the driving licence was active and was valid till 13/10/2015. As the information did not match with physical driving licence, lying with the Appellant/Complainant, he sent an e-mail to RTO, Darjeeling as well as the DM, Darjeeling, apprising them of the matter. Following which the Respondent/OP office, called the Appellant/Complainant, but could not give any suitable reply regarding the two different dates. Even the mediation held on 30/06/2022 at CA&FBP, Siliguri, failed, as the Respondent/OP did not turn up. Finding no alternative, the Appellant/Complainant filed a complaint case before the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, with necessary prayers.
In spite of receiving the summons the Respondent/OP failed to turn up and the case was heard ex-parte against them.
After going through the evidence and materials on record, the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri passed the impugned order, dismissing the complaint.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Appellant/Complainant preferred this instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.
Decisions with Reasons
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant, at the time of final hearing, had assailed the impugned order, on the ground that, even after satisfactorily explaining the non-compliance u/s 80 of the CPC, the Ld. Lower Commission had failed to appreciate the actual facts and circumstances of the case, even after admitting the case. That apart it had been further submitted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, having been repealed had been applied in the body of the judgement. Moreover, there were selective inputs which were utilized by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri against the Appellant/Complainant. Furthermore, the judgements relied on by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri while passing the impugned order, were inapplicable, as much as the facts in the cited cases were different from the present case of the Appellant/Complainant. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for passing necessary relief in favour of the Appellant/Complainant.
The Respondent/OP did not appear to contest the appeal following which the appeal was taken up for ex-parte hearing.
After going through the impugned order, it transpires that the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri, had laid reliance on the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S P Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi reported in AIR 1996 SC 839, in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director of Health Services, Haryana reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136, in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Vidya Chetal reported in (2019) 9 SCC 83, in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in AIR 1999 SC 22, in Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. C K Rajan reported in (2003) 7 SCC 546 and Pravat Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2015 (II) OLR 963.
On closure perusal of the above judgements, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had while passing the judgement in SP Goel (Supra) had decided that the person presenting documents for registration is not a consumer. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director of Health Services, Haryana reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 had decided that the Government servant is not covered by the definition of consumer. Therefore, the above judgements were inapplicable, as the principles decided were different from the principle in dispute, in the instant case. The judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported in AIR 1999 SC 22 is inapplicable to the instant case as the facts are quite different. The judgement passed in Pravat Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa reported in 2015 (II) OLR 963, also has no application to the instant case.
On the contrary, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had specified in Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. Vidya Chetal reported in (2019) 9 SCC 83, by laying down “6……..Thus, the law is that the Consumer Protection Act 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, i.e. an Act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen.
……..Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission/Forum is satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behavior.”
Under the circumstance, the discussions made by the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri while passing the impugned order does not appear to have merit and is therefore liable to be set aside. But as the merits of the facts of the case was not discussed in the impugned order, this appeal appears to be a proper case for remanding the same to the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri for writing a fresh judgement, based on the merits of the facts of the case. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.
It is therefore
ORDERED
That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte, but without cost.
The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri is hereby directed to comply with the directions mentioned in the body of the judgement.
Copy of the judgement be sent to the parties free of cost.
Copy of the judgement be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Siliguri for necessary compliance.
