BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR
C.C. No.181 of 2014 Date of Institution: 5.5.2014
Date of Decision: 19.2.2015
Nahar Singh, aged 26 years, son of Ram Parkash, resident of 8, The Mall, Ferozepur City.
....... Complainant
Versus
1. District Transport Officer, Ferozepur.
2. Incharge, Online LL Test Office of District Transport Officer, Ferozepur.
3. Suvidha Centre, Ferozepur, through Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur.
4. Kakkar Photostat & Computer, G.T. Road, Adjoining DAC Building, Ferozepur Cantt, through its Partner/Proprietor.
5. Pawan Kumar, Outside Kakkar Photostat, C/o Kakkar Photostat & Computers, G.T. Road, Adjoining DAC Building, Ferozepur Cantt.
........ Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Bajaj, Advocate
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Deepinder Singh, Representative
For opposite party No.2 : E x- p a r t e
For opposite party No.3 : Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Representative
For opposite party No.4 : Sh. Abay Batra, Advocate
For opposite party No.5 : Sh. Sandeep Khanna, Advocate
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\2//
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant wanted to get a driving licence, therefore, he approached the office of opposite party No.1 for getting prepared a Learner’s License first, upon which opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to purchase a form from opposite party No.3 for Learner’s Licence. Opposite party No.3 charged Rs.50/- for giving a form. The form was nothing, but a printed application form for issuance of licence, with blank coloumns in which particulars of the person applying for, were to be filled. That form could be got Photostat in Rs.1/- only, for which opposite party No.3 charged Rs.50/-. Opposite party No.3 declared that Suvidha Centre has been meant to collect the money from the people for the D.C Office and Punjab Government by selling the forms of Rs.1/- in Rs.50/- and more. Opposite party No.3 also told the complainant that he will have to purchase the said form from opposite party No.3, otherwise he will not be issued the licence. Further it has been pleaded that the complainant completed all the formalities and approached opposite party No.1 for issuance of the Learner’s License. Opposite party No.2 on behalf
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\3//
of opposite party No.1 told that the fee for issuance of the license be deposited. The complainant was ready to pay the fee, but there was no cash counter in the office of opposite party No.1 for receipt of the fee. Opposite party No.2 directed the complainant to deposit the fee for issuance of licence with opposite party No.4. Accordingly, the complainant approached opposite party No.4, who paid the fee of Rs.100/- for license online through his computer and charged Rs.190/-. The complainant was issued the receipt of Rs.100/-. The complainant asked why the amount of Rs.190/- has been charged, on which opposite party No.4 and 5 told that Rs.90/- have been received for giving service to the complainant for depositing his fee online through his computer. The complainant after completion of all the formalities and attaching the receipt of the fee for issuance of license, submitted his application form, on which he was again directed to pay Rs.60/- with the cashier of opposite party No.1, which was deposited on 26.3.2014. After getting deposit of Rs.60/- from the complainant, an online test of the complainant was conducted by opposite party No.2 and he was told that he has not cleared the test and directed to come again. The complainant was again directed to pay the fee for online test with opposite party No.4. The complainant approached opposite party No.4 and 5 and opposite party demanded and received Rs.70/- for deposit of the requisite fee for online test and after receipt of Rs.70/-, he issued the receipt for
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\4//
Rs.50/- only. The complainant again appeared for online learning license test before opposite party No.2 on 3.4.2014, but he was again declared unsuccessful. The complainant approached opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for getting prepared learner’s license and he was directed to appear in online test. Opposite party No.1 and 2 never conducted any class to tell about the traffic rules and traffic signs in order to know the people about the traffic rules and signs to clear the test and there is no literature and sign boards in the office of opposite party No.1 regarding the traffic rules and signs. The complainant was compelled by opposite party No.1 to purchase application form from the opposite party No.3, which sold the form of Rs.1/- in Rs.50/-. There was no law/rule that form for application for license was to be purchased from Suvidha Centre. Suvidha Centre does not provide any service in forwarding the application or supplying the licence. As such opposite party Nos.1 and 3 are looting the public at large by forcing them to purchase forms from opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.4 and 5 charge more than the fee deposited and further declares that he has to pay the share out of the excess charges. Further some agents sit over there so the person coming to deposit the fee can be trapped. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has prayed that opposite party No.1 be directed to :-
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\5//
(a) Guide/provide training to the persons regarding traffic rules and signs intending to appear in the online test for learner’s licence and display the traffic sign boards;
(b) accept the application forms, although not purchased from Suvidha Centre;
(c) display the board of requisite fee for particular itemand time to be t aken in preparation of that item viz licence, RC etc.;
(d) provide proper shed for public who stands in queue for deposit of the fee etc. in direct sun light;
(e) not to allow the agents to enter in the rooms of the staff members of opposite party No.1;
(f) direct the staff members to keep open the doors of the office during the office timing for the public comes for licence and R.C. etc.
(g) make sure that all the fee for licence and R.C. be deposited in the office of opposite party No.1;
(h) not to send the people for deposit of the fee with opposite party Nos.4 and 5 and remain present during the office hours for work, which has been assigned; and
(i) not to compel any one to purchase form etc. from it
Further the complainant has prayed that opposite party Nos.4 and 5 be
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\6//
directed to display the board as to whether he is authorized person to deposit the fee or not and how much fee he will charge in case of deposit of any fee with him. Further a sum of Rs.90,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that fee charged from the complainant for application form for licence by the Suvidha Centre, which falls under the control of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur and opposite party No.1 has no concern with it. As per instructions of the Government, the applicant can deposit the Scan Fee online from any authorized dealer and opposite party No.1 has no concern with opposite party No.4. Rs.60/- were charged as fee for learning licence by opposite party No.1 and receipt thereof was issued to the complainant. Cashier is also an employee of Smart Chip company and the cash collected by him is deposited daily in the bank. The receipt is issued for the same amount as is received from the public. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Opposite party No.2 did not appear before this Forum despite service of notice. Therefore, opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.6.2014.
4. In its written reply, opposite party No.3 has pleaded that the
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\7//
rates for facilitation and forms of various services were being charged by the Suwidha Centres in the State managed by the respective Sukhmani Societies (District e-Governance Societies) in various Districts of the State as per the recommendation of Member Secretary, Punjab State e-Governance Society, office of Directorate of Governance Reforms, Punjab, Chandigarh, circulated to all the Deputy Commissioners vide office memo dated 26.4.2013 considering the prime objective of providing better, transparent and efficient services to the citizens and local conditions including the financial position of individual Sukhmani Society, wherein it has been specifically clarified that taking into consideration the recommendations by various stake-holder’s and the Committee of Deputy Commissioners, the Executive Committee of Punjab State e-Governance Society in its meeting held on 22.4.2013 had recommended that the facilitation charges and charges for Forms should be uniform in the State and accordingly, recommended the rates for facilitation and Forms. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
5. In its written reply, opposite party No.4 has pleaded that the complainant has never approached opposite party No.4 for depositing the requisite fee/online learning license test fee at any point of time. The complainant has got attached the receipt of deposit fee in the name of one
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\8//
Pawan, whereas, the receipts of opposite party No.4 are issued in the name of “Rupa Kakkar” and not in the name of “Pawan”, as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. Pawan is sitting outside the shop of opposite party No.4. The said Pawan has issued receipt dated 3.4.2014 to the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
6. In his written reply, opposite party No.5 has pleaded that on 20.3.2014, the complainant has approached opposite party No.5 and gave total amount of Rs.170/- to opposite party No.5 and two receipts of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- were issued by opposite party No.5 to the complainant. The amount of Rs.150/- was regarding the amount for Punjab Motor Vehicle Department Form receipt of fees and Rs.20/- were charged as the expenses of Internet and Printing charges, two pages were printed at that time and the same were issued to the complainant for the receipts. Opposite party No.5 is having the business of computer typing and internet, therefore, livelihood of his whole family depends upon his business. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, Representative of opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\9//
Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex. OP-1/10 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. Similarly, Representative of opposite party No.3 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-3/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.3. Learned counsel for opposite party No.4 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-4/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.4. Opposite party No.5 tendered into evidence Ex. OP-5/1 to Ex.OP-5/3 and closed his evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite party Nos.4 and 5, representatives of opposite party Nos.3 and 4 and have also gone through the file.
9. So far as grievance of the complainant that Rs.50/- are charged by the Suwidha Center for providing application for issuance of learner’s driving licence, whereas, the same can be got photostat in Re.1/- only is concerned, the same are being charged as per Notification dated 26.4.2013 bearing No.12/3/2010/AM (EG) Government of Punjab, Punjab State e-Governance Society o/o Directorate of Governance Reforms, Chandigarh, copy of which has been placed on the file by opposite party No.3 as Annexure OP-3/A. A perusal of Column No.15 of copy of Standardization of facilitation charges, Uniform Forms Rates, copy of which has been placed on the file as Annexure OP3/B reveals that per form rate, including Service Tax, has been prescribed as Rs.50/- and admittedly Rs.50/- were charged by opposite party No.3 from the complainant for providing
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\10//
Application Form for learner’s licence. Therefore, no case of deficiency in service is made out against opposite party No.3 in this regard. Another grievance of the complainant is that opposite party Nos.4 and 5 received Rs.190/- against the online licence fee of Rs.100/- and issued receipt only for Rs.100/-. There is no evidence on the record that the complainant had paid Rs.190/- to opposite party Nos.4 and 5 as online licence fee, as alleged. However, opposite party No.5 has admitted in his written reply that the complainant approached opposite party No.5 on 20.3.2014 and gave total amount of Rs.170/- to opposite party No.5 and two receipts of Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- were issued by opposite party No.5 and Rs.20/- were charged as expenses of Internet and Printing Charges. Opposite party No.5 has also placed on the file copy of online receipts dated 20.3.2014 as Ex.OP-5/2 and Ex.OP-5/3 issued in the name of the complainant for Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-, respectively. As such, opposite party No.5 has issued receipts to the complainant for deposit of licence fee and Online LL Test Fee, but has not issued the receipt for remaining amount of Rs.20/-, admittedly received by him from the complainant as expenses of Internet and Printing Charges. Non-issuance of receipt in this regard amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.5. So far as grievance of the complainant that there was no cash counter in the office of opposite party No.1 for receipt of fee and he had to stand in a long queue
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\11//
for hours altogether in direct sun light is concerned, a perusal of memo No.2324 dated 28.8.2014, copy of which has been placed on the file by opposite party No.1 as Ex.OP-1/2, reveals that vide this memo, opposite party No.1 has already brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur that approximately 400 applicants/persons visit daily to the office of opposite party No.1 for getting issue their driving licences and no window system is available there to provide facility to the public, as a result of which they have to suffer a lot of harassment and they become the victims of some agents. Vide this memo, opposite party No.1 has prayed for providing at least three windows at Suwidha Center so as to provide window system facility to the public regarding the services relating to office of opposite party No.1. Therefore, from this memo, it is quite evident that the public at large has to face a lot of inconvenience at the time of getting issued their driving licneces and R.Cs. etc. due to non-availability of widow system at the office of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence on the record that traffic sign boards have been displayed in the office of opposite party No.1 in order to enable the applicants of learner’s driving licences to clear the online test for learner’s licence. Therefore, opposite party No.1 and 2 are held deficient for not providing window system to the applicants/public for getting issued driving licences and R.Cs. etc. as well as for not making
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\12//
aware the applicants of the learner’s driving licences regarding the traffic signs and rules. However, no direction can be issued regarding the remaining issues raised by the complainant for want of evidence.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to display sign boards showing the traffic signs/rules in the office of opposite party No.1 in order to enable the applicants of learner’s driving licences to clear the online test for obtaining learner’s driving licence and also display the board showing the description of number of days prescribed under the Right To Service Act for delivery of new driving licence, renewal of driving licence, registration certificate for new vehicles, transfer of registration certificate of old vehicles and other services being provided by opposite party No.1 and their prescribed fee to be deposited by the applicants. Further opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are directed to make suitable arrangements for providing facility of window system to the applicants/public in order to minimize the rush of the applicants, who visit the office of opposite party No.1 for getting issued new driving licences, renewal of driving licences, for issuance of new registration certificates and transfer of registration certificates etc. Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are further directed not to allow the private agents to enter the office and not to receive any document from them on behalf of any applicant/consumer. The complainant is at liberty to
C.C. No.181 of 2014 \\13//
get issue his learner’s driving licence from opposite party No.1 after qualifying online learner’s licence test. Opposite party Nos.4 and 5 are directed to display the board showing the rate of expenses to be charged as Internet and Printing charges for depositing online fee for licence, online learner’s licence test and registration certificates etc. and to issue proper receipts in this regard to the respective applicants/consumers in future. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, complaint against opposite party No.3 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced
19.2.2015
(Gurpartap Singh Brar) President
(Gyan Singh) Member
