COMPLAINT FILED: 25.05.2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 25.11.2009 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 25TH NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1190/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Ganapath Rao,<br /> S/o Bandeppa Bochare,<br /> Age 47 years,<br /> Occ: Teacher,<br /> R/at No.54, Balaji Nagar,<br /> Subhash Chowle,<br /> Bhalki Taluk, Bidar District.<br /> PIN – 585328.<br /> <br /> Advocate: S.S.Zulapi <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Secretary,<br /> Karnataka State Transport<br /> Authority,<br /> 5th Floor, M.S. Building,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate: L.T.Gopal<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay sum of Rs.19,00,000/- with interest 18% pa as compensation towards mental agony, negligence, expenditure on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief: <br /> <br /> 2. As stated in the complaint, is that he filed application before the OP on 12.06.2006 for contract carriage permit of the bus bearing No. KA-39 / 1565 by paying necessary fee of Rs.2,100/-. He has purchased the said bus having sitting capacity of 43+2 on 25.05.2006. Several times the complainant approached the OP but no permit was issued; the vehicle of the complainant remained idle, the officials of OP told that the application has been misplaced along with the receipt and advised to pay Rs.10/- for credit certificate; accordingly he has paid the same on 04.03.2008. After filing the application by the complainant OP has issued CC permit to several persons, but neglecting the complainant’s application with the details of the challen have been lost. Due to the negligence of OP the complainant suffered loss the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. The complainant sustained loss for a tune of Rs.5,000/- daily. On 08.12.208 the complainant has given application to OP for issuing CC permit early. The complainant issued legal notice through his advocate on 22.01.2009. After lapse of 2½ years OP has issued CC permit to complainant on 06.03.2009. Thus the complainant claims compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and negligence in issuing CC permit. <br /> <br /> 3. OP after appearance filed the version contending that complainant is not a consumer, complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has paid necessary fee of Rs.2,100/- towards the CC permit. There is no provision under the MV Act that the permit should be granted immediately after the application is filed, consideration of application for a permit is a statutory discretion and if he finds any fault of the authority it is for him appeal or file revision before the appropriate authority under the MV Act. The application was considered and the permit granted on 30.06.2008 as per order No.01/2008. The complainant himself was not owner in possession of the vehicle because the vehicle is given to the KSRTC on contract basis. The grievance of the complainant is not a consumer dispute. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant produced the documents with the complaint and filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations and filed written arguments. OP along with the version produced documents and filed affidavit in support of defence version.<br /> <br /> 5. After perusing the pleadings of the documents produced and affidavit evidence and written arguments of complainant hearing OP side. The points that arise for our consideration are:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’<br /> and the dispute raised is a ‘Consumer<br /> Dispute’ a defined under CP Act 1986?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled<br /> for the relief’s claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We record our findings on :-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative <br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S <br /> <br /> 7. It is not in dispute that the complainant filed an application before the OP on 12-06-2006 for contract carriage permit of the bus bearing No.KA-39/1561 and paid the necessary fees of Rs.2,100/-. The said application was misplaced in the office of the OP, as a result the same was not considered. On 04-03-2008 the complainant was informed that his application has been misplaced along with receipt and advised to pay Rs.10/- for credit certificate. Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.10/- through challen and filed another application to issue contract carriage permit and credit certificate. Accordingly in the meeting held on 30-06-2008 resolution was passed by the Karnataka State Transport Authority granting contract carriage permit in favour of the complainant with a direction to obtain the permit within 30 days from the date of receipt of intimation from the secretary KSTA. The intimation appears to have been sent on 06-03-2009. The complainant claims that on account of the negligence on the part of the OP in not considering his application for grant of contract carriage permit, his vehicle remained idle, as a result he has been put to loss of earnings to an extent of Rs.5,000/- per day. Hence, he is claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/-. <br /> <br /> 8. The main defence version is the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute raised is not a consumer dispute, the complaint is not maintainable. It is contended for the OP that the complainant has not availed the services of OP for any consideration, as such he is not a consumer, and OP is performing it’s administrative duties, grant of permit as a statutory function. The secretary of KSTA has intimated the proceeding of by grant of permit to the complainant. Thus it is contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the dispute alleged in the complaint is not a consumer dispute. <br /> <br /> 9. In the written arguments filed by the complainant reliance has been placed on the principles laid down in I (2008) CPJ 23 (NC) in support of the contention that the complaint is maintainable. In our view the principles laid down in the above citation cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. The complainant has not hired the services of the OP for any consideration. The amount of Rs.2,100/- fees paid towards contract carriage permit cannot construed as consideration paid for the services. OP is discharging it’s duties as a statutory authority, the application for grant of contract carriage permit filed by the complainant was considered by the KSTA and resolution was passed for grant of permit on 30-06-2008. The secretary of KSTA had sent intimation to the complainant about the grant of permit. <br /> <br /> 10. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court Page 839 S.P.Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi. It is held that person presenting document for registration is not a consumer and officers appointed under Registration Act and stamp Act do not render any service within a meaning of C.P.Act, they perform statutory duties which are at least quasi-judicial. <br /> <br /> In 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court cases Page 303 Venkata Kishore Raw Parboiled Rice Mill Vs. State of A.P. Apex court confirmed the order of NC holding that the non-issuance of permit under rice procurement levy order by the State Government is not a consumer dispute. The principles laid down in these ruling are aptly applicable to the facts of this case. OP has discharged it’s statutory duties in considering the application for grant of permit. Under these circumstances we are of the view that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the C.P. Act of 1986. The dispute alleged by the complainant is not a consumer dispute amenable to jurisdiction of this Forum. In view of the same the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 25th day of November 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> NRS<br />