BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.87 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 24.02.2021

      Date of Decision: 08.12.2022

Gurmail  Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh R/o Village Kot Khurd, P. O. Kot Kalan, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar (O/o D. C. Office      Complex, Jalandhar) through its, Secretary Sh. Barjinder Singh

2.       Office of Secretary RTA Jalandhar, through its Concerned Clerk       (Asstt.) Mr. Balwant Singh.

3.       Office of Secretary RTA Jalandhar through its Concerned Clerk        (Asstt.), Madam Manreet Kaur.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                          Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Vinod Kumar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.                      None for OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant as a Senior Citizen submitted/applied an application form no.25 alongwith own handwriting application dated 26.06.2019, including photocopies of registration certificate no.PCJ-9214 and photocopy of insurance of Bajaj Chetak Scooter and other documents from page no.1 to 12, before the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar for renewal of R.C. above said Scooter which was valid upto 14.07.2019. The then, Secretary Madam Nayan Jassal, RTA, Jalandhar marked his application dated 26.06.2019 along with all documents to the Concerned Clerk (Asstt.) to Mr. Honey and Madam Manreet Kaur for verification and computer system online due to small number of above said vehicle. Mr. Honey and Madam Manreet Kaur Assistants of RTA office Jalandhar verified above said R.C. No.PC3-9214 and computer on dated 02.08.2019 and final approval verified/passed by Madam Nayan Jassal, Secretary RTA, Jalandhar on the same day 02.08.2019. Then official advised to him for inspection of vehicle (MVI) physically and for paying tax including R.C. renewal fees online. After that Motor Vehicle Inspector Officer inspected vehicle PCJ 9214 physically scene and passed on 02.08.2019. Then all documents paper scrutinized by concerned clerks Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr. Jatinder Kumar officials RTA, Jalandhar checked in computer and verified. Then the complainant paid online tax including RC renewal fees Rs.920/- on dated 06.08.2019 receipt application no.PB8D190800001102/ PB19080219258140 dated on the same day and customer copy issued to him by the Concerned Clerk on 06.08.2019 as acknowledgement and second time MVI passed to be done on 17.11.2020 physically seen vehicle by MVI Officer. Then the complainant personally met to ADC (G) Jalandhar and writing on dated 02.12.2019, 07.08.2020 and 24.09.2020 and in respect of non supplying renewal of RC all his said letters/applications marked to PGO Jalandhar. The concerned PGO Jalandhar Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhaliwal Jalandhar forwarded his above said all applications to the Secretary RTA, Jalandhar for providing renewal of RC, PCJ - 9214 immediately to Mr. Gurmail Singh. After being fled up the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant Gurmail Singh served a legal notice to the Secretary, RTA Jalandhar by name on 01.06.2020 through Registered Post. But the opposite party never replied the same so far. After that he submitted/served notice through registered post on Secretary Ministry of Transport, Punjab, 04.01.2021 to the Department of Transport, Govt. of Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh regarding non supplying of above said R.C. Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.PCJ-9214 , which was already applied on 26.06.2019. The complainant requested to the Competent High Authority of Transport Department Punjab, for providing to him renewal of R.C. of the above said vehicle, but all in vain. The complainant completed fulfilled all formalities of above said vehicle MVI done, tax and fees paid online and verification done on computer. The concerned Secretary never raised any objection for providing R.C. and not intimated to him so far. The above said Secretary passed final order on 27.01.2020 for issuing renewal of above R.C, but not yet. More than period of one and half year have since been elapsed, but the OP have not provided renewal of R.C. Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.PCJ-9214, so far to the complainant Gurmail Singh. Due to this act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a huge loss, harassment and mental agony due to the negligence of the opposite parties and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed for providing issuing renewal of R. C. Bajaj Chetak Scooter No.PCJ-9214 either for issuing same number or re-registration allotted a new number for dated 31.03.2021 at the earliest and also ordered to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for subjecting the complainant Gurmail Singh to harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses in aggregates ordered to pay total claimed amount of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant Gurmail Singh from the OPs and also imposed penalty as a fine in addition to above compensation.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed its joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complainant is not at all a consumer qua OPs No.1 to 3, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score only. It is further averred that the answering opposite parties are govt. employees and whatever is done by them in their official capacity and is legal. The OP No.1 is a Govt. Office and no service charges are charged by it only the Govt. fees whatever are deposited by the Complainant. Due to prevalent conditions of Covid-19, the work of every govt. office had been adversely effected and so also the delay if any was caused by the Complainant itself and not on the part of the answering opposite parties. As per New Rules and Regulations and circulars of Registration Authority, Chandigarh from time to time, the complainant was required to get high security number plate affixed on its vehicle and delay if any was on the part complainant. That the Complainant failed to fulfill all the formalities in time, as required by law, and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is himself responsible to complete all the formalities. The Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as per Complainant's own documents he submitted application to the District Saanjh Community Policing Society Commissionrate, Jalandhar against the deposit of service charges on 21-01-2021 and the complainant failed to make the said society as party to the Complaint and filed case against the answering opposite parties without any cause of action, as our office do not charge any extra service charges except the government dues, fees and taxes etc. It is further averred that the answering opposite parties No.3 had been added as party to the complainant without any reason, and she had been on maternity leave from 21-04-2020 to 18-01- 2021 and after joining whatever she had done was in her official capacity being govt. employee and nothing beyond that. It is further averred that as per complainant's own documents, he submitted previous application on 26-06-2019 and the insurance policy expired during this period and he again submitted another application dated 18-01-2021 after renewal of Insurance on 20-07-2020, and whatever delay was caused was done by the complainant itself by completing the formalities and not on the part of opposite parties. It is pertinent to note here that the printing of license as well as Registration of documents is to be done by the Chandigarh Office. On merits, the factum with regard to submit an application by the complainant for renewal of RC of his scooter is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the complainant only as none has appeared on behalf of the OPs and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                In this case, none is appearing for OPs since last so many dates, but written statement is there. So, the complaint is being decided after going through the contents of the written statement and the documents furnished by both the parties.

7.                The complainant has proved on record that he applied for the renewal of RC, which was valid upto 14.07.2019. Ex.C-1 is the letter written to the Secretary RTA for the renewal of the RC. This letter is annexed with the pages from 1 to 12, which includes the policy of insurance, Form No.24 issued by RTA, vehicle history report for registration number PCJ-9214, the notings of the OPs showing that noting was given to renew the RC on 02.08.2019 and 27.01.2020. The complainant has further made representation to the RTA and Additional Deputy Commissioner for non-supplying of RC Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. The report from the Secretary RTA was sought by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the representation and complaint made by the complainant, vide Ex.C-3 consisting of pages 1 to 3. Again the complainant moved the complaint to the Secretary Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. The application with reference to public notice published on 30.12.2020 regarding registration mark has been proved as Ex.C-6 consisting of 9 pages, which includes the declaration by the complainant, copy of RC etc. It also includes the vehicle inquiry report. All the documents have been proved by the complainant.

8.                The contention of the OP is that the delay was caused by the complainant himself. He submitted an application on 26.06.2019 and during this period, the insurance policy of the complainant’s vehicle expired. After renewal of the insurance, he again moved an application on 20.07.2020. The further allegations of the OPs is that the complainant was required to get high security number plate affixed on its vehicle, but the complainant has failed to do the same, therefore the complainant himself is responsible for the delay.

9.                The complainant has proved on record Ex.C-8 showing that the high security number plates have already been affixed on his vehicle, vide application 24.11.2020 and the copies of the photos of the vehicles have also been proved on record Ex.C-9 to show that the high security number plates have already been affixed on it. The OP has issued letter Ex.O-1 to get the high security number plate affixed. This letter is dated 19.03.2021, whereas the high security number plates have already been affixed as per letter Ex.C-8 on 10.12.2020 i.e. prior to the date of writing letter. The necessary charges have been paid by the complainant, there is noting also to show that necessary orders and directions were sought by the OPs from the RTA to renew the RC, but till today the OPs have not supplied the RC and this is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the complainant has complied with the condition of affixing the high security number plate as per Ex.OP-1. As per Ex.OP-1 no new number can be assigned as the registration number is prior to 1989, therefore the same is ordered to be renewed as per letter Ex.OP-1.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed to renew the RC of vehicle of the complainant and further, OP No.1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

11.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

08.12.2022         Member                          Member           President