Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/113

Sukhpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.T.O Faridkot - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Singh

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       113

Date of Institution:  27.08.2015

Date of Decision :    27.01.2016

 

Sukhpal Singh aged about 35 years s/o Jagpal Singh r/o # 140, Opp. Sugar Mill, Farid Enclave, District Faridkot.

...Complainants

Versus

District Transport Officer, Faridkot.

                                                                                               ....Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Gagandeep Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh G. S. Chauhan, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to Opposite Party to issue registration cover and permanent registration number PB-04V-3339 for his car against temporary number and to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to complainant and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a car and temporary Registration No. PB-03AH (Temp) -2229 was allotted to his car and his car was fully insured with National Insurance Co. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda valid from 31.12.2014 to 30.12.2015. After completing all formalities, complainant applied for obtaining permanent registration number for his car against the temporary number and for this purpose he made payment of Rs 49,757/-as Life Time Tax and Rs 5,000/-as fee for booking of Permanent Registration Number, and complainant deposited the complete file with OP vide receipt dt 17.03.2015 and he was told to visit their office on 20.04.2015. On 20.04.2015, when complainant approached the office of OP with request to release his RC containing permanent registration number for said vehicle, the officials of OP used delaying tactics and did not issue him RC. Complainant paid many visits to the office of OP, but they kept lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and instead of issuing RC, they started pressurising complainant to get some other registration number and when complainant requested them to give him the same registration number against the temporary number already issued to him, they flatly refused to issue the said number. On 5.05.2015, brother of complainant was surprised to found that OP have issued said disputed number to another car, which was parked in the parking of Baba Farid Market, Faridkot. On this, he sought information under RTI regarding the said disputed registration number on the same day and also moved application before D C Faridkot with request to issue him the detailed information about the allotment of disputed registration number through registered post, but till 22.07.2015 he did not receive any reply. On 23.07.2015, his brother sought the same information through State Information Commission, Punjab under RTI Act, but that also bore no result. This act of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs2,00,000/- and Rs 10,000/-as litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.09.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                        On receipt of notice, OP filed reply taking preliminary objections that all the submissions and allegations made by complainant are incorrect, misleading and wrong and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and complaint is malafide and devoid of established principles of law and equity and is not maintainable in this Forum.

 

 and therefore, complaint deserves to be dismissed in liminee. Allegations levelled by complainant are unsubstantial and wrong facts are concocted by complainant. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. It is asserted that complainant deposited Rs 49,757/- and Rs 5,000/-, but complainant deposited the said fee with OP without the prior approval of the answering OP and complainant did not disclose the fact that he deposited the said amount under the order of OP or on his own. Moreover, registration fee is to be deposited by the seller Agency and provisional registration number is to be issued by said agency and if a customer wants to have any registration number of his choice or any fancy number, then, he has to seek the order from Registering Authority to take registration documents from the seller agency of vehicle, but in the present case, complainant has not disclosed as to how he got papers from agency, which can not be delivered otherwise. The registration is done by seller agency alone in case of all routine /ordinary numbers and not by the answering OP. The alleged registration number PB04V 3339 is an ordinary number and is also from offline series, which was allotted to one Veena against a retained number as per instructions. The complainant is himself to be bound for not getting the registration number purchased after he has deposited Rs 5000/-till one month whereas he had to do so immediately. It is further averred that answering OP did not issue any receipt dt 17.03.2015 to complainant and said receipt does not bear the signatures of answering OP. The online generated receipt was already with complainant and there was no mean to issue the said receipt by the answering OP and said online receipt is not the confirmation receipt for issuing the same registration number mentioned in the receipt. It is the person who himself fills the registration number online at the time of paying the fee through any agent or otherwise by himself. Ld counsel for OP averred that on 20.04.2015, the registration file of the complainant could not be entertained due to the investigation being conducted by the Department of Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot and most of the record of the office of answering OP was sealed by the Vigilance Bureau and this was the only reason for adjournment of the registration of the complainant and if it was entertained by OP, then first objection was to  be made was that the ordinary number of any choice cannot be allotted without the prior approval of the OP. If the person obtains the prior approval of OP, then, any of the ordinary number is to be allotted on the basis of first come first serve as per the notification dt 4.10.2014 issued by the Transport Department Punjab. It is further averred that complainant was already informed by the Office of OP that said registration number is already allotted to another person and if he wants to take another registration number of his choice, he is bound to take the prior approval from the Registering Authority, so that the registration number can be allotted but complainant was completely bent upon to initiate the proceedings against answering OP under Consumer Protection Act. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and allegations regarding delay are totally denied by OP being wrong, incorrect and baseless. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

5                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Prabh Dyal as Ex C-12 and documents Ex C-2 to C-11 and then evidence of complainant was closed by the order of the Forum.

6                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of DTO, Faridkot as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and 3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                                             The ld Counsel for complainant purchased a new car and a temporary registration no. PB-03-AH(Temp)2229 was allotted to the said car. The car was duly insured. The copy of bill of the car is Ex C-4 and insurance certificate is Ex C-5. After completing all the formalities, complainant applied for getting  permanent registration number for his vehicle. For it he paid Rs 49,757/-with OP as life time tax against proper receipt. Copy of same is Ex C-6. Complainant also deposited Rs 5000/-for booking of number of his choice i.e PB-04V 3339 online with OPs against the duly issued receipt. Copy of the same is Ex C-8. On that receipt, registration number booked by the complainant is duly mentioned. Complainant deposited the complete file for allotment of permanent registration number to his vehicle with OPs against duly issued receipt. Copy of the same is Ex C-9. The official of OP directed him to come on 20.04.2015 to receive his permanent registration number. He visited the office of OP on 20.04.2015 to receive the registration certificate of his vehicle but official of OP failed to issue the RC on that day and told him to come on later. Complainant visited the office of OPs many times and requested them to issue RC for his vehicle but they lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. The official of OP started putting pressure upon complainant to select some another number  instead the number booked by him i.e PB-04 V 3339, but complainant refused to do so and requested them to issue the same registration number which was booked by him. On 5.05.2015, the brother of complainant found that the registration number in dispute has already been released to some another vehicle which was seen by him in the parking of Baba Farid Market, Faridkot. On it, on the same day, the brother of complainant applied for all the information regarding it under Right to Information Act to OP but no reply or information was given by OP. Copy of the application under Right to Information is Ex C-10. He also moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot with request for detailed information regarding the allotment of registration number in dispute. Copy of the same is Ex C-2, but the Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot also did not give any reply. He also moved application to State Information Commission, Punjab but without any result. The OP is causing unnecessary harassment and tension to complainant by not issuing the permanent registration number of his car which was booked by him by paying Rs 5000/- extra as per rules, rather they wrongly and illegally allotted the said number to some another car which is duly against the law and rules. The complainant wasted his time in visiting the office of OP again and again and it caused great mental tension, agony and torture to complainant and he also suffered financial loss and hardship due to these acts of OPs. There is clear cut deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. The OP may be directed to allot the permanent registration number of the vehicle of the complainant which was booked by him and also to pay the compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to him due to their act.

  8                                         To controvert the arguments of complainant, ld counsel for OP argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant is not the consumer of OP. The alleged registration number PB04 V-3339 belongs to offline series which is meant for commercial vehicles, vehicles of the other state, retaining cases and reassignment case and the complainant deposited fee wrongly without the prior approval of the answering OP. The complainant filed the present complaint with malafide intention. There is no delay, deficiency or harassment on the part of OP. The complainant ought to get the registration of his vehicle through seller agency from where the complainant purchased his vehicle. The OP is only responsible to allot fancy number, when any of the fancy number is brought by any person through public auction. The registration number in dispute is an ordinary number and belongs to offline series, which can be allotted if obtained with prior approval from District Transport Office and complainant never approached them to get the prior approval for the allotment of the number. The complainant deposited Rs 5000/-for booking of the registration number in dispute at his own without the sanction of the District Transport Office. This number is already allotted to a vehicle belonging to one Veena Rani who applied for retaining her earlier registration number for her new car and alleged number is allotted to her old vehicle. The District Transport Office has authority to issue the registration number in retained cases. It is important to mention that at the time of applying of alleged registration number by complainant a vigilance enquiry was pending in the office of OP in respect of FIR No. 01 dt 01.01.2015, wherein said FIR was registered against Nachattar Singh DTO and Amarjeet Singh Clerk of this office and most of the record of office of OP was taken into custody by the Vigilance Bureau. So, the file of complainant could not be entertained by the office of OP at that time. Copy of the FIR is Ex OP-2. The complainant has made unsustainable claim against the OP and failed to prove any delay on the part of OP, rather there is delay on the part of complainant. He has filed the present complaint merely on the concocted facts. However, it is admitted that complainant deposited Rs 49,757/- and Rs 5000/- with OP but the complainant deposited the above said fee without the prior approval of the OP. He deposited the amount of Rs 5000/-on his own. As per rules, the registration fees  is to be deposited by seller agency and temporary registration number is issued by the said agency. If any person wants any registration number of his choice or any fancy number, he is to seek orders from DTO to take documents from the seller agency of vehicle but in the present case, complainant has not disclosed as to how he got the documents from the seller agency. In case of the ordinary numbers, registration is done by seller agency alone and not by District Transport Office. The alleged registration number PB-04V 3339 is an ordinary number which is already allotted to one Veena Rani against her retained number. Only by deposit of fees of Rs 5000/-, the complainant is not entitled for getting registration number of his choice. The OP did not issue any receipt on 17.03.2015 and it does not bear signatures of District Transport Officer. The online fees deposit receipt is not generally the receipt for issuing the same registration number mentioned in the receipt. The office of OP failed to entertain the file of complainant within time due to vigilance enquiry pending in the office of OP, who sealed most of the record of OP. There is no wilful delay on the part of OP. If any person wants to get any registration number of his choice out of ordinary numbers, he can get it by deposit of Rs 5000/-with prior approval of District Transport Office otherwise these numbers are allotted on first come first serve basis as per notification dt 4.10.2014 issued by Transport Department, Punjab, but complainant did not get any prior approval before depositing the fees of Rs 5000/-for allotment of number of his choice from DTO. Copy of the notification is Ex OP-3. If the complainant wants any number of his choice, he is bound to take prior sanction from Registration Authority. Only by deposit of fees, he is not entitled to get the number of his choice. Now, in the present case, the alleged number is already allotted to some other vehicle. OP is a Government official and is working to serve the public and to solve their grievance. They never refused complainant to allot the number to his vehicle, but the complainant is adamant to get the registration number in dispute, which already allotted to some other vehicle. There is no deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. The complainant did  not suffer any harassment, mental tension or financial loss due to non allotment of permanent registration number to the vehicle on time. He has filed this false, fabricated and vexatious complaint against OP and the present complaint deserves dismissal.

9                                    We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant as well OP and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file.

10                                    The case of the complainant is that he purchased a car and applied for permanent registration number of his car with OP. He paid life time tax and also paid Rs 5000/- for allotment of number of his choice as per rules against the duly issued receipt. He deposited all the documents required for it to the office of OP, but they did not issue the permanent registration number to his vehicle and lingered on the matter. Later on, he found that the registration number booked by him is allotted by OP to some other vehicle. On it he filed application under Right to Information act and also approached OP to get clarification regarding it, but they did not give any reply. In reply, the OP pleaded that the number in dispute allegedly booked by complainant is an ordinary number and can be allotted to him only with prior approval of OP and only by depositing of fee of Rs 5000/- by complainant without prior approval of OP, he is not entitled for allotment of number in dispute. As per rules, complainant never approached District Transport Office for sanctioning of allotment of the number in dispute to his vehicle and he deposited the fee at his own and in this case, the OP are not bound to allot the number in dispute to complainant. The number in dispute is already allotted to some other vehicle. The number in dispute is an ordinary number and it is allotted on first come first serve basis as per notification dated 9.12.2014 issued by Transport Department, Punjab.

  11                                         We have duly gone through the file and have carefully scrutinized the documents placed on record. The receipt regarding deposit of Rs 5000/-, which is allegedly for the allotment of number of choice of complainant duly shows that registration number PB 04 V-3339 and this fees shows the account of District Transport Office, thus District Transport office received the  registration fees and it is deposited online. The OP relied upon the notification dt 9.12.2014 vide which at Sr No. 4 E, it is mentioned that any registration mark of choice other than the aforesaid registration marks within district where he resides or carries on his business, a person can get it on deposit of Rs 5000/- on first come first serve basis. There is nowhere mentioned that for it the prior approval of concerned District Transport Officer or Registration Authority is necessary. As per notification, any person can get a registration number of his choice out of ordinary numbers by deposit of fees of Rs 5000/- on line and there is no necessity to get prior approval of the Registration Authority on first come first serve basis. As per procedure, on deposit of registration fees a person can select number out of 50 ordinary numbers which are first available on site and if any person wants to get any number of his choice from current series out of ordinary numbers, he can get it by depositing fees of Rs 5000/-on line and after it, entire ordinary numbers available in the series are displayed and the person can choose any registration number of his choice out of it and when he clicks on that number on line, the said registration number is booked on his name and cannot be allotted to any other person and that number written on the receipt generated online for payment of fees. But in the present case, OP wrongly allotted the number in dispute to some other vehicle. The OP pleaded that the ordinary number allotted on first come first serve basis but they failed to produce record that when they allotted the registered number in dispute to another vehicle to show that the said number was allotted to that vehicle prior to the application of complainant or not. The 2^nd plea of the OP is that a Vigilance enquiry was pending in their office regarding FIR dt 1.01.2015 but they cannot take the excuse of this vigilance enquiry as application of the applicant is received after that FIR and it is not under the enquiry of vigilance. Act of OP by not allotting the registration number booked by complainant by paying extra fees rather they allotted this number to some other vehicle amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

12                                           In these circumstances, complainant succeeds to prove his case and therefore, present complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to allot the registration number 3339 to complainant in the next available series. OP is further directed to pay Rs 2000/-as compensation for harassment and Rs. 1000/- as litigation expenses to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied free of cost to both the parties. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 27.01.2016                            

Member                   Member                President                              (Parampal Kaur)              (P Singla)              (Ajit Aggarwal)