Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/327

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTO Ludhiana - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

16 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 327 of 15.05.2015

Date of Decision            :   16.09.2015

 

Surinder Pal aged 55 years s/o Sh.Muhru Ram r/o #539/112/3, St.1-E, New Vishnu-Puri, New Shivpuri Road, Ludhiana-141007.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.The District Transport Officer (DTO), Ludhiana District, Mini-Secretariat, Ludhiana.

 

2.Suwidha Centre of DTO Office, Mini-Secretariat, Ludhiana, through its Incharge.

…Opposite parties

                   

                    (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         In person

For OPs                         :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant Sh.Surinder Pal filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter as referred as the ‘Act’) against the OPs, by alleging that he applied for renewal of his expiring driving license bearing No.0079721/REN dated 19.3.2010 in Suwidha Centre of DTO Office, Mini-Secretariat, Ludhiana on prescribed application form No.21931. Medical charges, scan fee charges were duly paid at the time of submission of requisite documents with OP2. Original driving license even was annexed with application. All the requisite forms were even duly submitted. Complainant was made to submit receipt in advance alongwith set of application forms and supporting documents and that is why he issued receipt No.885 dated 16.2.2015. The prescribed fee of Rs.270/- was paid, but the cash receipt despite demand was not provided to the complainant. Tentative time for delivery of renewed driving license was fixed for 15 days from 16.2.2015 i.e. by first week of March, 2015, but Ops not delivered the driving license to the complainant. On verbal queries put forth by the complainant, Ops disclosed that case file of the complainant not traceable and in absence of the same, Ops are not in a position to deliver the driving license or the application form etc. Complainant sent one complaint to Deputy CM, Punjab on his email ID on 1.4.2015, but of no use. As Ops failed to deliver the renewed driving license and as such, deficiency in service on the part of Ops pleaded for claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment. Rs.35,000/- as taxi fare spent by the complainant even claimed. Litigation expenses of Rs.15000/- also sought. Directions also sought to Ops to deliver the renewed driving license alongwith old driving license and original set of application forms.

2.                Ops did not appear and as such were proceeded against ex-parte. 3.                  In ex-parte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CA/1 alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and Mark-A and even tendered affidavit Ex.CA/2 of Sh.Sarvjit Singh and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.                          Written arguments not submitted by the complainant, but oral arguments addressed and were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                From the perusal of Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, it is made out that complainant submitted application form for renewal of driving license (copy of which is Mark-A). OP1 issued Validity Chit Ex.C9 for authorizing the complainant to drive the vehicle upto 26.2.2015. Despite that the driving license after being renewed was not given to the complainant until 17.7.2015 as revealed by Ex.C11 and as such deficiency in service on the part of Ops contended. Perusal of Ex.C11 reveals that original case file submitted by the complainant stood lost and that is why, an FIR was registered. Even in para no.4 of the complaint and corresponding para No.4 of affidavit Ex.CA/1, it is mentioned that complainant  got knowledge about the      un-traceability of the file, due to which, he was not in a position to get driving license at earliest. As factum regarding loss of file was brought to the notice of the complainant on verbal enquires and as such, he could have prayed Ops or designated authorities under The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011(Punjab Act No.24 of 2011) to issue a chit like Ex.C9 extending the period of validity of driving license from 26.2.2015 onwards. No such application shown to be submitted by the complainant with the Ops, but email Ex.C10 addressed to Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister, Punjab.

6.                Providing of services of renewal of driving license covered by provisions of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 (Punjab Act No.24 of 2011). Section 4 of this Act provides that the designated officer shall provide the service to eligible person within the given time limit. Such application with the designated officer for availing services of renewal of driving license not filed by the complainant. As providing of services qua renewal of driving license covered by the provisions of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 and as such, cognizance in respect of such matter by any other court is barred by Section 20 of the above said Act.

7.                Section 20 of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 read as under:-

“No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by any authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.”

8.                As cognizance qua matter of providing services of driving license within time limit can be taken under the provisions of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 and as such, the authorities under that Act has competency to exercise jurisdiction. As and when, the authorities under The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 to take cognizance in respect of the matter falling in domain of that Act,    then Civil Court or any other Forum cannot entertain any suit or proceedings as per above referred Section 20. So, this Forum has no jurisdiction. Remedy available with the complainant is to approach The Designated Officer or Commission or First Appellate Authority under the provisions of above said Act The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 provides exclusive remedy. In view of bar enunciated under Section 20 of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011, this complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.

9.                As per law laid down in case S.Dorai Raj vs. Divisional Personal Officer-I(2014)CPJ-444(N.C.), in case remedy under the Act like RTI is available, then complaint under the Consumer Protection Act will not be maintainable because of RTI Act being a Code in itself. Same is the position in case before us because here The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 is a complete Code providing for efficacious remedy of available services of renewal or issue    of driving license etc., within specified time frame limit. In case those services not provided within the framed time limit, then the aggrieved person can approach the designated officer and even can prefer an appeal before First Appellate Authority and then second appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. Reference to Sections 5 to 7 of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 can be made specifically in this respect.Thus The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 provides for delivery of services to people of Punjab State within given time limit and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As the said The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 is a complete Code providing for efficacious remedy and as such, this Act is a complete Code itself. Penalties for non-performance within specified time limit are envisaged by Section 9 of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011. Powers of the authorities concerned specified and aggrieved persons or persons eligible for obtaining services like issue of driving license or renewal thereof can approach those authorities and as such, the said Act being complete Code has to be given complete effect thereto. So bar of section 20 is attracted in this case, due to which, complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is not maintainable because of above cited legal proposition.

10.     Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant may avail remedy under the provisions of The Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011, if so desired. Copies              of this order be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Sat Paul Garg)                            (G.K.Dhir)

                                   Member                                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:16.09.2015

Gurpreet Sharma.