Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/139

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.T.A - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

13 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C. C. No. :               139 of 2018

Date of Institution:     16.08.2018

Date of Decision :      13.05.2019

 

Paramjit Singh s/o Karnail Singh r/o Sikhan Wala Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                                  ...........Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.  Regional Transport Office, Faridkot.
2. Amritpal Singh, Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Faridkot.
3. Navdeep Singh Steno, Regional Transport Office, (who deals with NOC) Faridkot.

............OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Complainant in person,

              Sh Navdeep Singh on behalf of OP-1 and 3,

              OP-2 Exparte.

 

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of car bearing number PB-04  U-9210 and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

 

 

cc no.- 139 of 2018

 

2                                    Briefly stated the case of complainant is that he was having a car bearing no.PB-04 U-9210 which he sold to one Shivraj Kumar five six months ago. Said Shivraj Kumar was to get transferred the car and its insurance on his name. complainant completed all formalities and requested OPs to issue NOC. Ops assured to issue NOC within few days, but did not do so.  After three months, complainant approached Ops and requested to release him NOC in respect  of his car sold by him to Shivraj Kumar, but OPs apprised that NOC has been uploaded on internet and by downloading the same, complainant can transfer his car in the name of Shivraj Kumar, but NOC was not uploaded on internet by OPs. Thereafter, on asking of agent of Shivraj Kumar, complainant submitted form no.28 to OPs for obtaining NOC, OPs supplied the same and complainant further submitted the same to said agent but he returned the said form saying it did not bear the signatures of Regional Transport Office. Complainant again approached OPs and requested them to issue the NOC containing signatures of DTO/RTO and on this, after several requests, OPs returned the said form after affixing stamp of DTO on it, which complainant gave to agent of Shivraj Kumar, but said agent brought before the Forum that document given by OPs was not NOC. Complainant approached OPs several times and made abundant requests to them to issue him NOC for transferring his car in the name of Shivraj Kumar, but OPs did not accede to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service and it has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

 

   

cc no.- 139 of 2018

 

3                                                  The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.08.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                              OP-1 and OP-3 filed reply wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer as they have not charged any fees from complainant. Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. It is further averred that complainant never approached them for getting his vehicle transferred or for getting NOC. It is averred that entire process for obtaining NOC is online and not manual. Complainant applied before OP-2 for issuance of NOC on 9.04.2018 and NOC in respect of vehicle of complainant was approved by Regional Transport Officer on 20.08.2018 and there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 3. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

 5                                               Notice of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP-2 through Process Server and it was duly served, but despite repeated calls, no body appeared in the Forum either in person or through counsel on behalf of OP-2 to contest the case, and therefore, vide order dated 16.10.2018, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.

6                                                         Proper opportunities were given to complainant as well as OPs to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

 

cc no.- 139 of 2018

 

7                                     To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP-1 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurnam Singh Assistant Transport Officer, Faridkot Ex OP-1 and affidavit of Navdeep Yadav Ex OP-3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1 and OP-3.              

8                             We have heard the arguments advanced by parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties. The case of the complainant is that six  months ago complainant sold his car to Shivraj Kumar and then he completed all formalities for transferring the RC of car in the name of said Shivraj Kumar and requested OPs to issue NOC. Ops assured to issue NOC, but did not issue the same and then after about three months, complainant requested to release him NOC in respect of his car. OPs told that NOC has been uploaded on internet and by downloading the same, complainant can transfer his car in the name of Shivraj Kumar, but NOC was not uploaded on internet by OPs. Thereafter, on asking of agent of Shivraj Kumar, complainant submitted form no. 28 to OPs for obtaining NOC, OPs supplied the same and complainant further submitted the same to said agent but he returned the said form saying it did not bear the signatures of Regional Transport Office. Complainant again approached and requested OPs to issue the NOC containing signatures of DTO/RTO and on this, after several requests, OPs returned the said form after affixing stamp of DTO on it, which complainant gave to agent of Shivraj Kumar, but said agent brought before him that document given by OPs was not NOC. Complainant made abundant requests to them to issue him NOC for transferring his car in the name of Shivraj Kumar, but OPs did not accede to his genuine requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 5. In reply,

cc no.- 139 of 2018

 

OP-1 and 3 asserted that complainant never approached them for getting his vehicle transferred or for obtaining NOC. It is averred that entire process for obtaining NOC is online and not manual. Complainant applied before OP-2 for issuance of NOC on 9.04.2018 and NOC in respect of vehicle of complainant was approved by Regional Transport Officer on 20.08.2018 and there is no delay or deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations are denied being incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint is made.

9                                    To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record copy of Certificate of Registration /RC of his car bearing no.PB04-U-9210 that proves the pleadings of complainant that said car was owned by him. Ex C-3 further proves the grievance of complainant that he submitted form no.26 to Ops for obtaining NOC for transferring his car in the name of Shivraj Kumar and Ex C-5 is copy of NOC issued by OPs on 20.08.2018. It is observed that complainant applied for issuance of NOC on 9.04.2018 and NOC issued by OPs to complainant is dated 20.08.2018. There is no doubt that there is prolonged delay in releasing No Objection Certificate by Ops to complainant though being public servants, Ops are duty bound to release the NOC to complainant within prescribed period. Act of OPs in causing delay in issuing NOC to complainant amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case, on the other hand OPs have nothing to explain to contradict the allegations of complainant.

 10                                                We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and pleadings of complainant. Delay caused by Ops in releasing NOC to complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. Ops are

cc no.- 139 of 2018

 

ordered to pay Rs.4000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.1000/-to complainant as litigation expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made jointly and severally within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 13.05.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                    Member                                President