| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 214 of 19.6.2018 Decided on: 6.6.2019 Ranjit Singh aged 54 S/o Ram Singh Village-Post Sidhuwal Patiala- 147001. …………...Complainant Versus Regional Transport Officer Block ‘D’ Mini-Sectt. Patiala. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt.Inderjeet Kaur, Member Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.G.A.Kumar,Advocate, counsel for the complainant. Opposite party Ex-party. ORDER B.S.DHALIWAL, MEMBER - The complainant Ranjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(here-in-after referred to as the Act) against Regional Transport Officer, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as OP).
- Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant after getting filled –in Form 9 and Form 1, approached OP for renewal of D.L.No.PB-1120010139295 on dated 27.3.2018, but OP refused to entertain it with remarks that a new Form No.1-A has been introduced and that also be submitted. When asked for Form 1-A from OP’s Counter person he declined to give Form 1-A and forced to purchase Form No.9 therewith for Rs.20/- bearing Sr.No.563882.
- It is further alleged that the complainant purchased Form-booklet consisting of 3 forms therein i.e. Form9, Form1 & Form 1-A all in size of A-4 for Rs.20/- of which market cost may be Rs.2/- maximum. This very tendency of OP amounts to ‘Highest-Profit-Earning’ Enterprises. Furthermore, under Rule 5 of CMV-Rules 1989, Form 1-A was not applicable for non-transport-driving–licence. It has simply been enforced for OP’s wrongful gain of Rs.20/-.
- It is also contended that when the complainant tried to submit duly filled-in forms, OP directed to come after depositing fee of Rs.470/- on-line from outside and outside booths are charging rupee between 150-200 for depositing on-line fee.
- It is also alleged that the complainant got deposited fee of Rs.470/- from shop No.142 (Shivam Computers Graphics, Mini-Sectt. Patiala) who charged Rs.130/-, totally paid Rs.600/-(Rs.470+130).Thereafter OP received application forms, photographed complainant and asked to collect DL after 20-30 days. In total complainant had to spend Rs.620/- for getting DL renewed.
- Complainant has pleaded that he is entitled for the refund of Rs.370/- alongwith penal interest and Rs.5000/-as costs of this forced litigation & Rs.5000/- as counsel’s fee and also Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment suffered by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
- Upon notice, OP appeared through his office representative and filed written statement in the shape of affidavit.
- In written statement, it is contended that since the fee for the renewal of driving licence including User’s charges etc. from the applicants, is being realized/recovered by the office of the OP as per the instructions issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab who is also a Member Secretary of the Punjab State Transport Society, therefore, the office of the OP is not indulging in any type of corruption by way of charging excess fee from the applicants as has been alleged in the complaint by the complainant. Against the fee and user’s charges being deposited from the applicants on line, proper cash receipt is issued to the applicant concerned. It is also stated in the reply that a copy of instructions issued by the Head Office detailing the fee and user’s charges to be received /recovered from the applicants for renewal of driving licence is enclosed with reply. In the end the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- Parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence,Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant,Ex.C1 copy of Rule 5 CMV Rule 1989, Ex.C2 fee receipt of Rs.470/-, Ex.C3 copy of Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989, Exs.C4&C5 copies of news paper cutting and closed the evidence of the complainant.
- In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant,, the OP tendered into evidence , the written version dated 21.8.2018 and closed the evidence.
- During the pendency of the complaint, the OP abstained the proceedings of the complaint, hence, proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.10.2018.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
- Ld. counsel for the complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the OP alongwith duly filled forms for renewal of his driving licence on 27.3.2018 but the OP refused to entertain it saying that the newly introduced Form No.1-A be filled up. It is further submitted that the complainant was forced to purchase the from from the market which cost him Rs.20/-.It is contended that under the Rules of the Central Motor Rules,1989, Form No.1 was not applicable for the renewal of licence in the case of the complainant. It is also argued that when the complainant approached the OP with the duly filled form, he was directed to make the payment on-line from outside and under the compelling circumstances. The complainant has to make the payment on-line of Rs.470/- and the shopkeeper charged Rs.130/- for doing it. In all, the complainant has to spent Rs.600/-.Our intention was invited towards the relevant rule of The Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 (Ex.C3) which is reproduced as under:
Rule 32.Fees.-The fee which shall be charged under the provisions of this Chapter shall be as specified in the Table below: -
| | | | | -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
| In respect of issue or renewal of learner’s licence of each class of vehicle | Thirty Rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of issue of driving licence in Form 6 | Forty rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of issue of International Driving Permit in Form 6-A | Five hundred rupees | -
-
| -
| -
| In respect of issue of a driving licence inForm 7. | 1[Two hundred rupees] including the cost of computerized chip | -
| -
| -
| For test of competence to drive | Fifty rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of addition of another class of vehicle to driving licence in Form 6. | Thirty rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of renewal of driving licence in Form 6. | 2[Fifty rupees] | -
| -
| -
| In respect of renewal of a driving licence in Form 6 to drive a motor vehicle for which application is made after the grace period | 3[Hundred rupees and an additional fee at the rate of fifty rupees for a period of delay of one year or part thereof reckoned from the date of expiry of the grace period] | | -
| -
| In respect of addition to another class of motor vehicle in Form 7 and renewal of driving licence in Form7. | 4[Two hundred rupees] inclkuding cost of computerized chip | -
-
| -
| -
| In respect of issue and renewal of licence to a school or establishment imparting instructions in driving | Two thousand and five hundred rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of issue of duplicate licence to the school or established imparting instructions in driving | Two thousand and five hundred rupees | -
| -
| -
| In respect of an appeal against the orders of licencing authority referred to in Rule 30. | One hundred rupees | -
| -
|
- Although the OP has proceeded against ex-parte but before this order was passed, the OP has placed on file his written statement in the shape of affidavit. To come to the logical conclusion and to arrive at fair decision, it is appropriate to take into consideration the pleadings of the OP. It is contended in the reply that the User’s charges for the renewal of driving licence is being realized/recovered by the OP as per the instructions issued by State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. It is also alleged that against the charged fee and user’s charges deposited by the complainant on-line, OP issued proper cash receipt. It is also written in the reply that the copy of the instructions detailing the fee and user’s charges is enclosed with it, whereas no such instructions were the part of the reply when filed.
- We have carefully gone through the record and have also considered the submissions of the ld. counsel for the complainant.
- The averment of the complainant is that he was forced by the OP to purchase a booklet consisting of few forms at the cost of Rs.20/- and further has to incur an expenses of Rs.160/- for on-line payment and has to make excess payment against the prescribed rules as enshrine d under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 which is only Rs.50/-. These contentions are not corroborated by any sort of evidence except the receipt (Ex.C2).The perusal of the receipt reveals that the complainant has made payment of Rs.470/-.All contentions in its entirety were to be proven by the complainant by affirmative evidence.
- On the other hand the OP in its reply submitted that there are instructions from the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab in which details of fee and user’s charges are depicted as chargeable. Onus was upon the OP to prove this contention but no such copy of instructions has been brought on file. In the absence of such instructions, it is inferred that Rule 32(In the table at Sr.No.6) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 has to adhere to for the purpose of renewal of licence.
- For the reasons recorded above, the net conclusion is that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.50/- as per rules as discussed above. Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed. The OP is directed to refund Rs.420/- to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs.
- The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
- Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:6.6.2019 B.S.DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR MEMBER MEMBER | |
