1.      The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’) in FA No. A/22/37, wherein the Appeal filed by the Respondents/OPs was partly allowed and the Order dated 18.11.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (“the District Forum”) in CC No. 59 of 2018 was set aside.

2.      For convenience, the parties are referred to as stated in the Complaint before the District Forum. Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sovani is denoted as the Petitioner/Complainant. Asst Regional Transport officer and Viddulata Shukhdev Karade, are identified as Respondents/ OPs.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he had purchased a car bearing Regn No.MH-04-DR-7990 from Mr. Tukaram Lad of Mumbai.  Thereafter, the Complainant applied for changing the Registration Certificate in his name along with all requisite documents, after paying the Registration Fee with the RTO, Ratnagiri in the year 2016.  He received the Registration Certificate on 12.06.2018.  Due to huge delay in getting the Registration Certificate of his vehicle, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum.

4.      In their reply before the District Forum, Respondents/OPs have pleaded that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable in law as there was no relationship of ‘Consumer and Service Provider’ between the Complainant and the Respondents/OPs. The Respondents/OPs contended that they were performing duty under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and there was no relationship as service provider.  They further averred that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/OPs and so the complaint was not tenable in law and needs to be dismissed.

5.      The learned District Forum vide Order dated 18.11.2021, allowed the complaint with the following findings:

  “…..

17. From all the above discussions, it is concluded that the complainant has completed all the documents related to the transfer of the vehicle on 04-05-2016. Despite completion of all documents on 04-05-2016 and payment of fee for transfer of ownership of the vehicle opponent obtained again on 28-11-2017 and also on 20-04-2018 and made inexcusable delay of almost two years for transferring the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. The said action of the opponent is an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service to the complainant.

18. The complainant is entitled to get damages from the opponent for mental distress suffered by him during the entire period due to fault in service by the opponent.

19. The complainant incurred a loss of Rs.30,000/- due to the accident of the complainant's vehicle. Complainant has requested to recover the said expenses from the opponent.

However, the complainant has not produced any evidence regarding the said amount of Rs.30,000/- as damages, therefore it cannot be granted.

Also, the complainant had to go to the office of the opponent 12 times for which a total amount of Rs.24,000/- was spent but has not produced any evidence and, therefore the prayer of complainant to get the expenses. 24,000/-cannot be granted by the Commission.

20. Due to the delay of almost 2 years by the opponent in transferring the ownership rights of the complainant's vehicle, the complainant is entitled to receive a lump sum of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the Opponent no-1 as well as towards the cost of complaint application, Rs.5000/- by the Opponent no-1 to the complainant

21. Opponent no 2 being an employee of the office of the opponent no 1 and making her a party in his personal capacity, so no order against opponent no 2 would be justified. So the answer of above issue no.1 and 2 is affirmative.

ISSUE NO.3

22. As the complainant has proved with evidence that opponent no-1 has caused financial, mental and physical hardships to the complainant by delaying the transfer of ownership of the complainant's vehicle, the order is as follows.

- Order-

1. The complaint application is partly allowed.

2. Opponent no-1 shall pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as the financial, mental and physical distress with interest @ 6% p.a. from the Judgment of the complaint application dated 18-11-2021 until the full amount is paid to the complainant.

3. An amount of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complaint application shall be paid by the opponent no-1 to the complainant.

4. There are no orders against opponent no-2.

5. The aforesaid order shall be complied within 45 days with by opponent no.1 from the date of passing of the said order.

6. If the above order is not complied by opponent no-1, the complainant can seek action against the opponent under section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act.

7. Both the parties shall be provided with the true copy of the judgment free of cost.”(Extracted from True Translated Copy)

6.      Aggrieved by the Order of the District forum, the Respondents/ OPs filed Appeal No. A/22/37 before the learned State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 12.01.2023 partly allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order of the District Forum dated 18.11.2021, with the following 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 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 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 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 Of icer, 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 of icers 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’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the compensation 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 Of icer, 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 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

1. Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
2. 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.
3. Parties to bear their own costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.”

7.      Dissatisfied by the Impugned Order dated 12.01.2023, the Petitioner/ Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

8.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the grounds in the revision petition and asserted that the learned State Commission had wrongly held that the Assistant Regional Transport Officer was performing sovereign functions as provided by statute namely Motor Vehicles Act and so cannot be terms as a Service Provider nor the Petitioner/Complainant can be termed as Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  He further submitted that the Respondents/OPs failed to discharge their duties and thereby committed deficiency in service.  He sought to set aside the order of the State Commission and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) District Transport Officer, Mansa District Transport Officer Mansa Punjab & Anr. Vs. Amit Goyal, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4140;

(ii) State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2122 of 1999, decided on 14.09.2004 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(iii) RegionalTransport Officer vs. Abhishek Prakash Sirole, FA No.A/10/733, decided on 19.09.2011 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, C/B at Nagpur.

9.      In his arguments, the learned Counsel for Respondents/OPs reiterated the facts of the case and argued in favour of the impugned order passed by the State Commission. He sought to dismiss the present Revision Petition with cost.

Top of Form

10.    I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties.

11.    The main issue to be determined in this case is whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ by applying the change of Registration Certificate in his name from the previous owner of the vehicle by paying requisite fee to the Respondents/OPs.

12.    It is admitted position that the Petitioner/Complainant had applied for change of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in his name from the previous owner, and paid the prescribed fee to OPs in the year 2016. The Petitioner received the Registration Certificate of his vehicle on 12.06.2018. There is a delay in obtaining the said Registration Certificate. The learned State Commission had examined the evidence in detail and made specific observations that the Petitioner/ Complainant does not fall within the definition of a Consumer. After careful consideration, I concur with the view taken by the learned State Commission that the Respondents/OPs, the RTO, Ratnagiri, were performing sovereign functions under the statute, namely the Motor Vehicles Act. These functions mandate specific actions and clearances prescribed before approving the request and issue the revised Registration Certificate. These actions have legal implications. In the absence of specific allegations and establishing delay or deficiency in service, after the same was already approved by the competent authority, the Complainant cannot be termed as Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

14.    In view of the foregoing discussions, in my considered view, no interference is warranted to the detailed and well-reasoned order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the learned State Commission in FA No.A/22/37.

15.    The Revision Petition No.933 of 2023 is, therefore, Dismissed.

16.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.