Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/39/2024

ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant(In person)

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	39 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	24.01.2024
Date of Decision	:	11.07.2024

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, S/o Sh.Dalbir Singh, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana - 125042.

   …Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1. Commissioner, Transport Department Haryana, 30 Beige Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Na), Sub-Divisional Office, Narnaund, Hisar-125033.
3. Superintendent, General Services-1, Branch, Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Haryana Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh-160001.

….…..Respondents/opposite parties

BEFORE:    JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                    MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

Present:-   Sh.Ashok Kumar Prajapat, appellant-On VC.

                Sh.Amanpreet Singh Virk, Government Pleader for the respondents.

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI

 

                   The appellant (complainant) has assailed the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.192 of 2022 filed by him was dismissed.

2.           Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that on 18.3.2020 he had sent his representative/ brother to the office of the opposite party no.2 for changing the title of registration of his vehicle bearing no.HR07W-5259 against which receipt for Rs.580/- dated 18.03.2020 was issued. It was averred that receipt was given for Rs.580/- whereas Rs.590/- was collected. Due to this negligence and mistake of the office staff of opposite parties no.1 and 2, he has to pay Rs.30/- for sub- point “A” of point-2, sub- point of Rs.100/- for “B”, sub- point - Extra recovery of Rs.10/- for "C" and sub- point - Rs.10/- for "D" which makes a total of Rs.150/- as financial loss. Even the documents which were provided to the complainant were not in Hindi language. Matter was taken up with the opposite parties but to no avail.
3.           The complaint was contested by the opposite parties and it was stated by them that  the claim made by the complainant for not providing the Form 23A in Hindi language does not fall under the Motor Vehicles Act. Rules are notified by the Central Government for the uniformity and State Government cannot make changes to it. It was stated that no cogent proof regarding demand of extra amount of Rs.10/- by any employee of the opposite parties, has been submitted by the complainant which can be inquired upon. No extra money except applicable as per provisions of the Act and applicable fees like postal, user etc., was charged. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong.
4.           The contesting parties led evidence before the District Commission.
5.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint. 
6.           Hence this appeal.
7.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record very carefully.
8.           The appellant/complainant-(on VC) submitted that he had submitted application for registration of the vehicle bearing no.HR07 W5259, through his brother. At that time, receipt for an amount of Rs.580/- was issued but the person received amount to the tune of Rs.590/- from brother of the complainant i.e. Rs.10/- in excess. He submitted application to the authorities on 19.03.2020 but nothing has been done in that regard and the registration certificate of the vehicle was given to him after 90 days and it was sent on the wrong address.
9.           On the other hand, counsel for the Govt. Pleader for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the District Commission being  based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point needs to be upheld. He further submitted that that the application/Form submitted for registration of the vehicle in question was entertained on receipt of Rs.580/- and not Rs.590/-. He further submitted that RC  in question was prepared in accordance with law, in English language, and the same was accordingly sent to the correct address of the complainant.
10.           The main contention of the appellant is that on 18.03.2020, his brother had gone to the office of the Registering Authority for change of ownership of vehicle no. HR07 W5259. He placed on the record receipt for an amount of Rs.580/- but he claimed that the concerned authority has charged Rs.590/- i.e. Rs.10/- in excess. Admittedly, the  appellant was not present at the spot, rather he claimed that his brother had gone to the office of the Registering Authority for change of ownership of vehicle no. HR07 W5259, from whom Rs.10/- was allegedly charged in excess. On the inquiry by this Commission, the appellant submitted that he has two brothers but he did not disclose the name of his brother, who has gone to the office and from whom Rs.10/- has been allegedly received in excess. No affidavit of his brother has been placed on record to this effect. Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act reads as under:-

“114. The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

1. to d) ……………

5. that the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed ;
6. ………….."

The entire complaint is based upon hearse. Nothing has been explained, as to why the appellant did not disclose the name of his brother and why the affidavit of his brother has not been placed on record.  In this view of the matter, it is held that the appellant has failed to prove his case that the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs.590/- but issued receipt of Rs.580/-.

11.           It was also pleaded by the appellant that Form-23A for RC was issued in English language, which should have been in the Hindi language. It may be stated here that the appellant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the respondents were duty bound to provide the said document or the registration certificate (RC) of the vehicle in question in Hindi language. Whereas, on the other hand, it is the definite stand of the respondents that as per the Notification G.S.R. 174 (E) dated 01.03.2019, the format of Form 23-A has been notified by the Central Government in English language only for the purpose of uniformity, in which the State Government cannot make any change. The appellant has failed to place on record any contrary evidence to challenge the said stand taken by the respondents.     
12.           As far as delay in delivery of RC is concerned on the ground that it has been sent on wrong address, it may be stated here that this issue has rightly been dealt with by the District Commission holding that there is no evidence to prove that the address mentioned in the documents provided by the complainant was not that of which is found mentioned in the RC. Under these circumstances, this plea taken by the appellant  also being devoid of merit stands rejected.
13.           Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and as such did not need interference of this Commission. 
14.           Resultantly, this appeal stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
15.           Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of, accordingly.
16.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
17.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

11.07.2024

 

 

 [JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

 MEMBER

Rg.