Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is an exception to the judgment & order dtd.15.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in complaint No.CC/09/789, partly allowing the complaint, directing the appellants / opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- and further Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings to the respondent / complainant.
This appeal was listed for hearing before admission. Though the notice was not issued before the admission, respondent appeared suo motu through his Ld. Counsel Mr T D Mandlekar.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
1. Respondent / complainant, who was college student, was required driving licence i.e. Smart Card. Therefore, on 27.11.2008 he applied to appellant No.1/ o.p.No.1 – Regional Transport Officer (for short RTO), alongwith requisite documents. RTO was required to conduct the test and thereafter required to send documents to o.p.No.3 – United Telecom Limited, which was appointed by the appellant / o.p.No.2 – Traffic Commissioner for issuance of Smart Card. However, appellant Nos.1 & 2 / o.p.No.1 & 3 avoided to discharge their duties. Therefore, respondent / complainant was required to make complaint dtd.16.12.2008 in writing with appellant No.2 / o.p. No.2 – Traffic Commissioner who made enquiry and issued directions to appellant / o.p.No.1 for issuance of Smart Card. Even then the appellant No.1 / o.p.No.1 & 3 avoided to issue Smart Card. Thus, according to the respondent / complainant all the appellants / o.ps. failed to discharge their duties and thereby committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the respondent / complainant made the complaint with District Consumer Forum, Nagpur.
2. In response to the notice, appellants / o.ps appeared before the Forum and by their separate say they resisted the complaint, contending inter alia that the respondent / complainant is not a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not tenable. Further it is contended that they are performing their statutory duties in routine and there is no deficiency in service, etc.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering documents on record, District Consumer Forum, Nagpur held that the respondent / complainant is a consumer and the appellants / o.ps committed deficiency in service, etc. and partly allowed the complaint, awarding compensation of Rs.1,000/- and further Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned judgement & order o.p. Nos. 1,2 & 3 preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order and copies of other documents.
6. Smt. Palsodkar Ld. Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that there was no deficiency in service. It is further submitted that respondent / complainant is not a consumer and therefore, the complaint itself is not tenable.
7. However, she has fairly conceded that appellant No.3 / o.p. No.3 – United Telecom Ltd. was appointed by the appellant No.2 / o.p.No.2 – Traffic Transport Commissioner for service i.e. for issuing Smart Cards. It is also an admitted fact that appellant No.1 / o.p.No.1 – RTO was required to conduct driving test and thereafter by processing the case, to send the case papers to appellant No.3 / o.p.No.3 for issuance of Smart Cards. Therefore, considering the undisputed facts, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held that the respondent / complainant is a consumer, etc.
8. As far as the deficiency in service is concerned, undisputedly, there was delay about 40 days in issuing the Smart Card. Not only this, but the respondent / complainant was required to make complaint against the appellant Nos.1 & 3 / o.p.No.1 & 3 with appellant No.2 / o.p.No.2 – Traffic Commissioner. On receipt of complaint appellant No.2 was required to make enquiry and after enquiry appellant No.2 was required to issue necessary directions to appellant Nos. 1 & 3. These undisputed facts itself suffice to hold that there was deficiency in service. Accordingly, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held.
9. Further, it is significant to note here that though as per proviso 2 u/s 15 of CPA 1986, it is mandatory for the appellant to deposit 50% of amount awarded by the District Consumer Forum or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less, the appellant failed to comply with this mandatory provision by misleading the office and got registered the appeal. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be summarily dismissed on this ground only. However, it is submitted by Smt Palsodkar, Ld. Counsel for the appellants that after filing of this appeal, when the respondent / complainant filed execution proceedings before the District Consumer Forum, on 03.05.2011, the appellants have deposited the entire amount awarded by the Forum with the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. In support of this submission, she has also produced Xerox copy of payment receipt. Therefore, we neglect this point.
10. However, since it is obvious from the aforesaid discussion, that the respondent / complaint is a consumer of appellants / o.ps., & they committed deficiency in service, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held the same and allowed the complaint partly. Though complainant has claimed Rs.90,000/-, considering the facts of this case, the Forum has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere this impugned judgement & order. Hence, appeal deserves to be rejected summarily.
Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal stands summarily rejected.
2. No order as to cost.
3. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
Pronounced on 19.09.2011.
