Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/443/2020

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Haryana State Transport - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	443 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	08.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	19.01.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar son of Sh.Dalbir Singh, Resident of Village Mohalla, District Hisar (Haryana) 125042

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Commissioner, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017

 

     ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:      MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,  PRESIDENT

                            MR.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

 

Present:-       Complainant in person

Sh.Chandbir Singh, Sub Inspector/Representative of OP

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that the complainant on 11.3.2020 visited Regional Transport Office, Hansi (Haryana) and applied for No Objection Certificate in respect of his vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-20-AF-7981.  It is stated that that the complainant deposited all requisite documents and also paid Rs.150/- for getting NOC for the above stated vehicle.

         It is submitted that the Receipt issued by the said Office for payment of Rs.150/- was not in Hindi Language as per instruction of Government of Haryana.  Apart from this, the complainant felt the problem of smoking in the said office and when he contacted Official there, he was assured that the concerned official will be told not to do so but despite that the complainant was not informed about it.  It is pleaded that the complainant felt suffocation and insecurity by the indirect smoking.  It is also pleaded that smoking in a public place is prohibited as per COTPA, 2003. It is stated that the complainant was not issued NOC in respect of his vehicle by the till date despite several visit and requests. Alleging the said act & conduct of OPs as deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

2]       It is important to mention here that the complainant has filed the present complaint against two OPs i.e. OP No.1 (Commissioner, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017) and OP No.2 (Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Haryana, through Chief Medical officer, Hisar 125001).  Later on OP No.2 (Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Haryana, through Chief Medical officer, Hisar 125001) was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 13.10.2023, hence the present complaint survives only against OP No.1 (Director, Haryana State Transport, 30 Bays Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017). 

3]       After notice of the complaint, the OP (Haryana State Transport) has put in appearance and filed written version stating that there is no relationship between the complainant and OP as that of ‘consumer’ and ‘trader’ or ‘service provider’ nor is there any dispute in the nature of consumer dispute in the subject mater in issue in the present complaint.  It is sated that the complainant had applied for issuance of NOC at Registering Authority, Hansi but surprising, he has not impleaded the Registering Authority, Hansi as party to the complainant.  It is also stated that the complainant has not suggest any valid reason for impleading the Commissioner, State Transport as party to the present complaint whereas the office has no role to be played in the present matter.

         It is pleaded that the complainant had appeared before the Registering Authority, Hansi on 11.3.2020 and applied for issuance of No Objection Certificate in respect of a vehicle registration No.HR-20AF/7981 against which NOC was issued to him vide NOC No.HR2020-NOC-1867E and a receipt No.HR21R20030000371 dated 11.03.2020 was generated by the system of the Department after collecting service charges of Rs.150/- from the complainant.  It is also pleaded that within the time-frame, per government instructions, the NOC stood issued and it was the duty of the complainant to collect/receive the same from the office of Registering Authority, Hansi but the record shows that the NOC issued by the said authority as well as original RC of the vehicle are still available in the authority, meaning thereby that the complainant himself has never visited to collect the same. It is submitted that now with the greed prevailed upon the complainant in order to blackmail and pressurize the authority, the complainant has filed the present complaint by trying to take benefit of his own wrongs.  It is also submitted that the complainant, after applying for the NOC, himself did not come in a pre-planned manner so that he may misuse this self-designed opportunity against the authority and its officers to blackmail them.  It is denied that the complainant had any instance to suffer hardship in the office of the Department on account of smoking nor had there been any instance when the complainant would have needed to complain against the alleged matter which has never happened at all.  It is denied that the complainant had any difficulty in the office of the department. It is stated that the complainant has projected an altogether false story with full concoction and imagination.  Lastly it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, Representative of the OP and have perused the entire record.

6]       In the present complaint/CC No.443/2020, the main issue involved is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP or not ?

7]       In order to find out the answer to this issue, it is necessary to discuss the following facts & circumstances of the complaint in detail:-

         The complainant has alleged that he has made payment of Rs.150/- along with documents on 11^th March, 2020 and applied for No Objection Certificate in respect of his vehicle bearing Regd. No.HR-20-AF-7981 to Regional Transport Office, Hansi.  He has further alleged that when he went to the office of Regional Transport Office, Hansi, there he felt the problem of smoking in the said office and complaint about it to the concerned officials, who assured him not to do the same.  The complainant stated that he felt suffocation and insecurity due to the effect of passive smoking.  He further alleged that Smoking in public place is prohibited under COTPA, 2003. 

8]       Though the complainant has alleged these allegations against the OP but he has failed to produce any documentary evidence to this effect on file.  As far as the second allegation i.e. the OP has not issued NOC in respect of his vehicle bearing NO.HR-20-AF-7981 is concerned, there is weight in the arguments of the OP that the complainant has not impleaded the concerned Regional Transport Authority as a party in the complaint and the OP i.e. State Transport Authority has no role to play in issuing NOC regarding the above said vehicle of the complainant.  It is admitted by the OP that the complainant has applied on 11.3.2020 for issuance of NOC in respect of his vehicle bearing NO.HR-20-AF-7981 at Regional Transport Authority, Hansi against which NOC was generated vide NOC No.HR2020-NOC-1867E and a receipt No.HR21R20030000371 dated 11.03.2020 was generated by the system of the Department after collecting service charges of Rs.150/- from the complainant. 

9]       So from the above said facts, it is clear that NOC was generated within the time frame period as prescribed by the instructions of the government and now it is the duty of the complainant to collect the same from the concerned office of Regional Transport Authority.  It is observed from the facts that NOC was issued by the concerned Regional Transport Authority and the complainant is entitled to collect the same from the said office.  Once the Regional Transport Authority has generated the NOC in respect of the vehicle of the complainant with the time frame period then it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP. 

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OP.  Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

11]      Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19.01.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER