IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/02/2021.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
18.01.21 15.02.21 26.04.22
Complainant: Yajul Sk @ Reajul Islam
S/o Lt. Zullar Sk @ Lt. Zillar Rahaman
Vill. Mirzapur Dakshinpara, PO-Mirzapur,
PS-Beldanga, Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742190
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Regional Transport Officer, Murshidabad at Berhampore
R.T.O. Office, Old Police Line Road
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Rudranjan Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : None.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Ray……………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay………………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt.Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Yajul Sk (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Regional Transport Officer (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is a owner of one Tractor (Swaraj) bearing No. WB-57A/2072, Engine No. 471403SKK1629, Chasis No. QSCK51605014802 and that the Tractor was registered on 11.03.08 in the office of RTO, Murshidabad. The Complainant further stated that he paid the tax on regular basis for the tractor till March,18 but after that when the Complainant tried to pay the tax through online portal became unsuccessful. And after that the Complainant enquired it at the MVI Office but they failed to give any satisfactory answer. On 10.12.20, the Complainant intimates the matter through Advocates letter for arranging necessary steps to take the tax from the Complainant but it yield no result. For non-submission of the tax, the Complainant is facing much trouble to run the said tractor. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission for appropriate relief.
The OP took notice through peon book but did not turn up for the reason best known to him. So, the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP.
Now the question arises-
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer or not?
- Whether the consumer is entitled to get relief as prayer for?
Decision with reason
Point no.1
The Complainant has filed the instant case against the OP alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP in respect of facing trouble for non-payment of tax.
We have gone through the petition and documents filed by the Complainant.
The term Consumer has been define in section2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as under
Consumer means any person who-
- Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include the person who obtain such good for resell or for any commercial purpose; or
- Hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of first mention person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.
Explanation- For the purpose of this clause,-
- The expression “Commercial Purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;
- The expression “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services’’ includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing.
On bare reading of the above it is clear that consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for consideration but does not includes a person who buys goods or hires or avails of services for commercial purpose.
On perusal of the complaint and documents, it transpires that it is admitted case of the Complainant that he has registered his vehicle Tractor (Swaraj) ) bearing No. WB-57A/2072, Engine No. 471403SKK1629, Chasis No. QSCK51605014802 in the office of RTO on 11.03.08 for commercial purpose. It is clear that in order to avail of benefit of the explanation the Complainant is required to show that he has use the tractor for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment.
But it appears from the case record that the Complainant has taken the certificate of registration where it has been mentioned in the class of vehicle as tractor(Commercial). So as per section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Complainant cannot be termed as consumer.
Point no.2
The Consumer is entitled for relief if there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
The expression deficiency of service has been dealt with by the Honorable Apex Court in Arifur Rahaman Khan and Ors. Vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., reported at vi (2020) SLT 50=4 (2020) CPJ 10 (SC)=2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 544, where in it has been discussed as follows:
“23,……….. The expression deficiency of services is defined in Section 2(1)(g) of CP Act, 1986 as :
(g) “deficiency” ,means any fault, imperfections, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
As per section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines ‘’deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes-
- any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and
- deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.’’
In view of the above Regional Transport Officer, Murshidabad at Berhampore (OP) is not a service provider regarding the instant case of the Complainant and returning to the fact of the case, we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of the OP regarding failure of payment of tax by the Complainant. Therefore, the OP does not have any locus standi to maintain the consumer complaint before this Commission. Complaint is accordingly rejected.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 18.01.21 and admitted on 15.02.21. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/02/2021 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte but without costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
