Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/30

Baljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTO Faridkot and ors - Opp.Party(s)

L S Dhillon

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       30

Date of Institution:  20.02.2015

Date of Decision :    18.08.2015

 

Baljit Singh aged about 49 years s/o Gurbachan Singh r/o VPO Mehmuana, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainants

Versus

1. District Transport Officer, Faridkot.

2. Concerned Clerk, District Transport Officer, Faridkot.

3. Data Entry Operator, Counter No. 15 Sukhmani Suwidha Centre for Deputy Commissioner, Mini Secretariat, District Faridkot.

4. Data Entry Operator, Counter No. 03 Sukhmani Suwidha Centre for Deputy Commissioner, Mini Secretariat, District Faridkot.

                                  ....Opposite parties (Ops)

    

   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 L S Dhillon, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                     Sh Gurpreet Singh Data Entry Operator for OP-1 and 2,

            Sh Atul Gupta, Ld Counsel for OP-3 and 4.

    

    (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for causing delay in renewal of his Driving License bearing no. PB-04 -20090005427 and for seeking directions to OPs to pay Rs 70,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to complainant.

   2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that Driving License of complainant bearing aforementioned number was valid upto 31.03.2013 and complainant submitted the same for renewal with OPs alongwith requisite documents and fee and OPs issued receipt dt 15.11.2013  and tentative date for delivery of DL after renewal was given as 27.11.2013, but when complainant reached the office of OPs 3 and 4 on specified date to receive his renewed DL, he was told that while submitting form, complainant had not filled the requisite scanning fee and when complainant showed the scanning fee receipt to concerned hand, he told that scanning fee deposited by complainant is untraceable in their computer and therefore, complainant should further pay the requisite scanning fee, which was refused by complainant and thereafter, dealing hand of OPs themselves removed the objections regarding scanning fee and got submitted his file and  asked him to come on 2.12.2013 and again on 12.12.2013, 30.12.2013, 1.01.2014, 3.01.2014 and 9.01.2014 with mal-intention to hurt and harass the complainant and intentionally caused delay in releasing his renewed Driving License and released his DL after renewal after a delay of 45 days on 12.01.2014. Complainant made complaint regarding this fact to A.D.C, Faridkot on 13.01.2014 under Right to Service Act, who found OPs guilty for making delay in releasing DL, but did not impose any penalty/fine to OPs. Thereafter, complainant challenged the order passed by ADC, Faridkot and made appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot under Right to Service Act, which was decided by D.C.Faridkot on 27.05.2014 and Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot imposed penalty of Rs 2000/-to OPs for their non appearance before said Authority. But as complainant did not get justice and therefore, for redressal of his grievance, complainant has filed present complaint with prayer to accept the same and also to pay compensation. Counsel for complainant contended that on repeated visits of complainant in the office of OPs on aforementioned dates i.e 2.12.2013, 12.12.2013, 30.12.2013, 1.01.2014, 3.01.2014 and 9.01.2014 complainant has spent a huge amount on petrol and eatables and OPs have done so intentionally to harass and hurt the complainant. 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 Rs 70,000/- besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.02.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of notice, OP-1 and 2 filed reply taking preliminary objection 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. It is averred that DL bearing no. PB-04-20090005427 renewed in time without any delay, rather delay was on the part of complainant as he had not paid the scan fee at the time of applying the renewal of his DL and it is brought before the Forum that without proper fee, DL cannot be issued and after submission of scan fee by complainant, his DL was issued at the spot. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against OPs as there is no proof of delay on the part of answering OPs 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, OPs have 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 OPs. Allegations regarding delay are totally denied by OPs 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                                       OP-3 and OP-4 filed reply through counsel taking preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of answering OPs as complainant has not paid any amount for services availed and therefore, complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that complainant has availed opportunities for redressal of his grievances under Right to Service Act 2011 and due enquiry was conducted. It is further submitted that earlier the enquiry was conducted by Addl Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 17.02.2014, but complainant was not satisfied with said order and he preferred appeal before Appellate Authority under Right to Service Act and said authority accepted the appeal on 27.05.2014 and imposed fine of Rs 2000/-. Counsel for OP-3 and 4 submitted that bare perusal of complaint reveals that complainant only wants the execution of said order to get monetary benefits by filing the present complaint. On merits, counsel for answering Ops submitted that they are only carrier between general public and Transport Department as they collect documents from public and handover the same to the concerned department and after completing particular documents, concerned department returns the same to answering OPs for giving back the same to complainant/persons like him. It is further averred that date of delivery for handing over the driving license was 28.11.2013 and not 27.11.2013 as alleged by complainant.  All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted by OP-3 and 4 with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs.

6                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vijay Kumar Syal as Ex OP-1,2/1 and took adjournment for remaining evidence, but no evidence was produced by OP-1 and 2 and then, evidence of OP-1 and 2 was closed by the order of this  Forum. Ld Counsel for OP-3 and 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldeep Singh as Ex Op-3,4/1, affidavit of Dara Singh as Ex OP-3,4/2 and documents Ex OP-3,4/3 to 12 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs-3 and 4.

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

9                                     The Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant had a Driving License, which was valid upto 31.03.2013. On 15.11.2013, complainant applied for renewal of DL alongwith all necessary documents and he also deposited the requisite fee with OPs. OPs gave the date 27.11.2013 for delivery of his driving license. When on the stipulated date, complainant visited the Suwidha Centre, Faridkot, the officials of OPs told that he has not deposited the Scanning Fee, so his license is not renewed. On it, complainant  showed them receipt of scanning fee which was attached with the file but the official of OPs insisted that he should deposit scanning fee again as it not traced by their computer but complainant refused to deposit the fee again, then official of District Transport Office removed the objection and told complainant to come on 2.12.2013 for receiving his DL but on that day they did not deliver the DL of complainant and told him to come on 12.12.2013, again on 30.12.2013, 1.01.2014, 3.01.2014 and 9.01.2014 and finally delivered the DL of the complainant on 12.01.2015 after renewal i.e with delay of 45 days without any explanation. Officials of OPs intentionally called complainant again and again only to harass him. On 13.01.2014, complainant filed an appeal before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot under Right to Service Act. Copy of the same is Ex C-8. The ld ADC found OPs guilty for making delay in renewing the DL of complainant vide its order dt 17.02.2014 Ex C-9, but Ld ADC did not award any compensation. On it, complainant filed an appeal against this order before Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on 7.04.2014, copy of the same is Ex C-10. The Ld Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot vide its order dated 27.05.2014, confirmed the order of ADC and awarded Rs 2000/-as penalty but the complainant is not satisfied with it. On it, complainant filed an application before this Forum on 11.08.2014 but this Forum did not take action on it due to technical defects. Complainant argued that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops as they did not deliver the DL of complainant within time and harassed him by calling him again and again and prayed that present complaint may be allowed and compensation may be awarded alongwith litigation costs.

10                                  In reply to the arguments of complainant, counsel for OPs submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The present complaint is filed on false grounds and misleading facts.  The OPs had renewed the DL of complaint on time without any delay, rather delay was on the part of complainant as complainant had not paid the requisite scanning fee and other documents. When the complainant deposited the scanning fee, his DL was issued with immediate effect. Complainant is not consumer of OPs. Complainant has already availed the opportunity for getting his grievance redressed under Right to Service Act and due enquiry under Right to Service Act has already been conducted and after enquiry, ld ADC, Faridkot passed order on 17.02.2014, but the present complainant was not satisfied with said order and then, he filed appeal before Appellate Authority under Right to Service Act before Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. The court of Appellate Authority accepted the appeal on 27.05.2014 and amount of Rs 2000/- was imposed as penalty. Copies of both the appeals and orders are already placed on file by the complainant himself. It is settled law that the same matter between the same parties cannot be agitated before two Forums simultaneously. The complainant already availed opportunity for redressal of his grievance under right to Service Act and now, he has again filed present complaint under Consumer Protection Act. If he is not satisfied with the order of the Authorities under Right to Service Act, the only remedy left for him is that to file appeal against those orders and not to file a separate complaint under separate provisions before another Forum. The OPs have already made compliance of the orders of Ld Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and deposited fine imposed by them and copies of its receipt and letter are Ex OP-3, 4/3 and 4.

11                                         Ld Counsel for OPs placed reliance upon the judgment Jagdish Rai Vs Nagar Council, Barnala and others passed by Hon’ble State Commission Punjab, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 502 of 2014, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission decided that if a person had already availed remedy under Right to Service Act, then he can not avail remedy under Consumer Protection Act, which is a different channel and prayed for dismissal of present complaint with costs.

12                               It is admitted case of both the parties that complainant applied for renewal of his Driving License with OPs, which was delivered after renewal on 12.01.2014 with delay and complainant filed appeal against the Ops under Right to Service Act before ADC and then, appeal against the order of ADC before ld Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot and availed remedy for redressal of his grievance under Right to Service Act. It is a settled law that if a person has adopted one channel, he must avail the further remedy under that channel and not before different Forum. The counsel for OPs placed on record copy of judgment Jagdish Rai Vs Nagar Council, Barnala and others (supra) wherein Hon’ble State Commission has also taken the same view. The para numbers. 6, 7 and 8 of this judgment are reproduced hereunder, where Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab Chandigarh discussed this matter in detail.

(vi)  After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on record, it was observed by the Ld District Forum that CC had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Judicial Authority under the Right to Service Act and the matter is still pending there.

(vii) In case the matter is pending there then the complainant can not seek the remedy before another Forum. The Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4061 of 2010 “T. Pundalika Vs T. Revenue Department”, decided on 31.05.2011 observed that the complainant cannot be considered as ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act since there is remedy available for the complainant to approach the Appellate Authority.....”. It was held by this Commission in F A No. 893 of 2012 “ S Milkha Singh, Educational Institute Bareta  Vs Nikka Singh” that “when separate remedy of appeal is available under RTI Act, 2005 and if required information was not provided to respondent no. 1, he is required to approach the Appellant Authority under RTI Act to redress his grievance as different channels were provided under RTI Act.......because it is settled law that if the applicant has availed one channel the must avail the further remedies under that channel before the appropriate authority”.

(viii) Further this Commission in F A No. 1269 of 2010 “Ashwani Kumar Kakkar Vs Public Information Officer” decided on 29.10.2010 as well as F A No. 1404 of 2012 “Parbodh Chander Bali Vs Public Information Officer”, decided on 4.12.2012 held that ‘complaint against the RTI information does not First Appeal No. 502 of 2014 lie before the District Forum as there is a separate remedy available under RTI Act, 2005 and the complainant chooses one channel”. The appellant had also availed remedy under Right to Service Act, which is still pending so the appellant also can not avail the remedy under CP Act, which is different channel simultaneously at the same time.

13                                          In the light of above discussion, we are fully convinced with arguments addressed by OPs and the case law produced by them. We do not find any merit in the present case and therefore, case in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied free of cost to both the parties. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 18.08.2015                    

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