NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/210/2012

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAGAR & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MRS. BHARATHI DANGRE

30 Mar 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 207 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2011 in Appeal No. 732/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ANR.
Amravati Road Nagpur, Tehsil &
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. Trancport Commissioner, State of Maharastra,
New Adminstrative Building, Near Dr. Ambedkar Garden, Bandra(E)
Mumbai
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. DHIRAJ DOMAJI GAIDHANE & ANR.
307, Near Ishwar Chaddewar Sabhagruha, Near Nandanwan
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. United Telecoms Ltd., Adminstrative Office
Regional Office, Girepeth, Amravati Road Nagpur Tehsil
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 208 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2011 in Appeal No. 733/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT
Amravati Road Nagpur, Tehsil &
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. Trancport Commissioner, State of Maharastra,
New Adminstrative Building, Near Dr. Ambedkar Garden, Bandra(E)
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. ABHISHEK PRAKASH SHIROLE & ANR.
L-45 Yeshwant Nagar
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. United Telecoms Ltd., Adminstrative Office
Regional Office, Girepeth, Amravati Road Nagpur Tehsil
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 209 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2011 in Appeal No. 734/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ANR.
Amravati Road Nagpur, Tehsil &
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. Trancport Commissioner, State of Maharastra
New Adminstrative Building, Near Dr. Ambedkar Garden, Bandra(E)
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MAKARAND HARISH PANDIT & ANR.
24 Shankarnagar
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. . United Telecoms Ltd., Adminstrative Office
Regional Office, Girepeth, Amravati Road Nagpur Tehsil
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 210 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2011 in Appeal No. 735/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ANR.
Amravati Road Nagpur, Tehsil &
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SAGAR & ANR.
Regional Office, Girepeth, Amravati Road Nagpur Tehsil
Nagpur
Maharastra
2. Sagar S/o Girish Wasule
L-35, Yashwant Nagar, North Ambajhari Road
Nagpur
Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MRS. BHARATHI DANGRE
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 30 Mar 2012
ORDER

 As the facts and point of law involved in all these revision petitions is the same and similar, revision petitions are disposed of by a common order.  Facts are being taken from revision petition No.207 of 2012.

          Respondent/complainant who is a college student required a driving license i.e. Smart Card.  On 18.12.2008 he applied to the Regional Transport Officer – opposite party no.1 – for issuance of the license with requisite documents.  RO was required to take test and thereafter to send the documents to United Telecom Limited – opposite party no.3 – which was appointed by the Traffic Commissioner – opposite party no.2 – for issuance of Smart Card.  However, opposite party Nos.1 & 3 failed to issue the Smart Card.  He wrote to opposite party no.2 who also asked opposite party Nos. 1 & 3 to issue Smart Card but in vain.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          Petitioner on being served put in appearance and took the stand that the complaint was not maintainable.  That the dispute between the parties was not a consumer dispute.

 

-3-

          District Forum overruling the objection raised by the petitioner allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- along with costs of the equal amount.

          Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed.

          Though we find that the point raised by the petitioner that the dispute was not a consumer dispute is an arguable point and needs consideration, but keeping in view that the dispute involved is only of Rs.2,000/- only (Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs) we decline to interfere with the impugned order as the costs of litigation would be much more than the amount involved and the respondents who are college students shall have to come all the way from Maharashtra, Nagpur to defend the case.  Revision petitions are dismissed leaving the question of law left open.

          Orders passed by the State Commission be not taken as a precedent for future reference. 

 

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.