Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This is an appeal filed by org. opponent/RTO, Nashik against the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.170/2004 decided on 14/03/2005. By allowing the complaint partly, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the RTO, Nashik to pay to the complainant a sum of `500/- as nominal compensation for mental harassment and `250/- as cost of the proceeding and also directed to issue duplicate RC Book within one week from the date of receipt of the order. Aggrieved by this award, RTO, Nashik has filed this appeal.
2. The facts lie in narrow compass. The complainant owned a Maruti 800 of 1991 model bearing No.MH-15-A-2752 and she had registered the vehicle with RTO Nashik. However, she had lost said RC Book and therefore, she applied for duplicate RC Book by paying prescribed fee of `100/- on 24/07/2002. Further, she had filled in Form No.RM-26. However, when she went to RTO after one week she was not given the said RC Book and she was directed to bring No Objection Certificate from the Financer as well as she was also directed to pay arrears of road tax amounting to `13,926/- and she was also asked to fill in Form No.35 for getting duplicate RC Book. Since she had not complied with said requirements as directed by the opponent, duplicate RC Book was not issued and so alleging deficiency in service on the part of appellant/RTO Nashik, consumer complaint came to be filed by Smt.Savita Gynashwar More which was ultimately allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by passing the award as mentioned above. Aggrieved by that award, RTO, Nashik has filed this appeal.
3. We had issued notices to both the parties on 24/08/2011 on finding that since 2005 this appeal was lying unattended. On 24/08/2011 this appeal was listed for hearing before us and it was published on Notice Board of this Commission as well as on the Internet Board of this Commission. Despite this fact since both parties were absent, we directed office to issue notices and notices were made returnable today i.e. 21/10/2011. In the meantime, on 01/10/2011 office had sent notices to both the parties. In response to said notice, Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate appeared for the appellant. None present for the respondent. We presume that notice was received by both the parties despite the fact that respondent has not come to argue this matter.
4. We heard Mr.Prakash Kadam, Advocate for the appellant. None is appearing for the respondent. We therefore propose to dispose of this appeal on merits. We are finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of RTO, Nashik appellant herein. In as much as after depositing `100/- fee prescribed for issuing duplicate RC Book, RTO Nashik had directed respondent to produce No Objection Certificate from Financer. She was also directed to fill in Form No.35 and she was furthered directed to pay arrears of road tax of `13,926/-. These are the normal requirements for issuance of duplicate RC Book. Since, respondent did not comply with the said requirements, RTO kept the matter pending and taking advantage of the fact she moved the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing consumer complaint and alleged that she has not been given duplicate RC Book because she had not approached Agent of RTO found roaming in the corridors of the RTO office. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum without properly considering the facts and circumstances on record gave erroneous finding that RTO was guilty of deficiency in service. Said finding is per se bad in law. When a person applies for duplicate RC Book for any vehicle, RTO makes an inquiry in other aspects of the matter. When her file in respect of said vehicle was seen by the RTO, it was found that she had not paid road tax arrears of `13,926/-. She had also not given Form No.35, the requirement of law and she had also not obtained or produced No Objection Certificate from the Financer. These requirements were essential before issuance of duplicate RC Book. So the matter was kept pending and she was again asked to make compliance for issuance of duplicate RC Book. She committed default. So, RTO had not issued duplicate RC Book as per her request. When she was guilty of default, RTO cannot be held guilty of inaction. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum gave erroneous finding in favour of the respondent. By allowing this appeal, said erroneous finding will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 14/03/2005 is quashed and set aside. The consumer complaint No.170/2004 stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 21st October 2011.
