West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/54/2013

Smt. Chabi Rani Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ram Sundar Samui - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complainant Case No.54/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 28/01/2014                            

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. P. K. Ghosh, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. A. Mandal, Advocate.

          

    Smt. Chabi Rani Dey, W/o Ajit Dey, Vill. Ciyara, P.O. Lohabaranchak, P.S.Narayangarh,                                                                                                                  

    Dist. Paschim Medinipur………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Sri Ram Sundar Samui, S/o-late Bhanu Samui, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport

          Office, Collectorate, Paschim Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur

2.  The Secretary, Regional Transport Office, Collectorate, Paschim Medinipur, Dist Paschim Medinipur……………Ops.

 

          Case of the complainant Smt Chabi Rani Dey, in short, is that she is owner of the truck under registration NO.WB33/1394.  For the purpose of its certificate of fitness the vehicle was produced on 04/03/13 before the Regional Transport Authority, the Op.  But the inspector refused its fitness, certificate and unlawfully claimed money on the plea of theft of this vehicle.  The Op used rough behavior with tilthy language.  After long persuasion the complainant was ultimately refused to get certificate of fitness in respect of her vehicle.  Stating the allegation, the complainant prays for  proper redressal of her grievance with direction for payment of 1,00,000/- (One lakh) only as loss of her business, 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only for penalty and  of 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) only for litigation costs against the Ops.

          The Op Sri Ram Sundar Samui contested the case by filing written statement challenging that the complainant has no cause of action of this case of the allegation of misbehavior and unlawful demand of money.  Moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to maintain this case.

       Contd…………….P/2

 

 

 

- ( 2 ) -

               Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed for the purpose of arriving at correct decision in respect of the allegation made by the complainant.

Issues:

1. whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for seeking relief?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons:

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

            All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other, the Ld. Advocate for the complainant stated the case and argued that since the complainant paid the necessary fees for getting fitness certificate, the Op is bound to issues such certificate as this is a lawful duty towards the service in terms of the definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  But without rendering this service the Op misbehaved with the complainant and demanded unlawful money for the purpose of giving such service.  So, there is good ground for allowing this case against the Op.

            Ld. Advocate for the Op made his argument that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case as the issue of fitness certificate from the Government authority does not cover by the Consumer Protection Act.  The service in the spirit of the said act is to be purchased by the consumer which is made available to potential usurers and facilities in connection with Banking Financing Transport Processing etc. as defined in the Consumer Protection act.  Here the complainant has not purchased any service which is bound by the complainant to comply in order to meet the said purchase by her.  Moreover, to issue any fitness certificate is within the statutory duty of the regional Transport Authority and any case of such allegation that should be made before the authority.  Lastly, the Op here of is an employee and as such he is not liable to comply with any order if passed by the Forum.  Ld advocate in this connection clearly submitted that the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case with the prayer for getting such relief from the Forum.

             Having considered the case in details, we are in the opinion that the complainant has made direct allegation against the Op. No.1 Sri Ram Sundar Samui.  According to law, the duty of the motor vehicle inspector is to submit his report upon inspection of the vehicle before the statutory authority and the statutory authority will issue the fitness certificate.  Here in this case of allegation made by the complainant is a subject to be considered by the appropriate statutory authority.  So, we have no scope to interfere into the matter

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

 unfortunate for the complainant Smt Chabi Rani Dey.  Rather we should advice her to move before the transport authority for proper relief.

              In view of the discussion made hereinabove the issues are held and decided against the complainant. 

 

                   Hence

                              It is ordered

                                                  that the case be and the same stands dismissed on contest without cost.

 

Dic. & Corrected by me

             

         President                                        Member                                                       President

                                                                                                                                District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.