This appeal is preferred against the final order dated 18/12/2015 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F Cooch Behar in CC/54/2014. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the office of the conservator of forest wild life north circle, Jaldapara has confiscated a vehicle styled as Maruti OMNI bearing registration no. WB64B 5415 and placed the same for auction sale by issuing a notice. In response to the notice the complainant Subhojit Dey Chowdhuri has purchased the said vehicle in auction with a considering price of Rs. 55,020/- and after completion of all necessary formalities it was handed over to him on 26/12/2013 by the office of DFO, Jaldapara and the said DFO also sent a letter vide memo no. 702/5/206 dated 03/03/2014 to the regional transport office, Cooch Behar to change the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the complainant. In spite of that direction of DFO, the RTA, Cooch Behar did not change the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the complainant for which he could not ply the vehicle in spite of purchasing the same by making payment of consideration price in due course of law. The complainant in repeated occasions by letter addressing to the RTA requesting him to cause the change of ownership of the vehicle in his name so that he could avail the service of the same since its purchase. But all his efforts was failed due to non-execution of the order of DFO on the part of the RTA. So, the complainant was compelled to register a consumer complaint before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986 against all the Govt. agencies for not providing proper service to the purchaser. There was deficiency of service on their part and for that reason, the complainant has approached before the Ld. Forum for adequate compensation and refund of purchase money. The RTA of Cooch Behar has contested the said case by filing written statement and contended inter alia that the vehicle in question was hypothecated with Mahindra and Mahindra financial Ltd. who has financed the vehicle to the original purchaser from whom the vehicle was confiscated by the Forest Authority and the RTA had no scope to change the owner ship so far hypothecation was still in existence. The OP no. 2, 3 and 4 has jointly contested the case by a written statement and contended that the consumer complaint was not maintainable. After hearing all sides Ld. Forum has adjudicated the same dispute to the effect that there was deficiency of service on the part of the OP no. 1 that is RTA, Cooch Behar for which he was liable to make payment of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant as compensation. And also directed him to pay the same amount within 45 days, failing which he would have to pay Rs. 100/- each day’s delays and the said amount to be accumulated in the consumer welfare fund.

            Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that Ld. Forum has misconceived to the fact that the RTA was not a service provider and the complainant was not a consumer as per provision of CP Act, 1986 and there was no deficiency of service or practicing unfair trade practice on the part of the RTA and the order of the Ld. Forum was liable to be set aside.

            The appeal was admitted though there was some delay on the part of the RTA but the Commission in order to provide sufficient opportunity to hear his case in this Commission, the memo of appeal was admitted and notice of the appeal was served upon the consumer complaint S. Dey Chowdhury and proforma respondents who happened to be the OP no. 2 to 4 in original consumer complaint case. The said proforma respondents has recorded their presence to contest the appeal but the consumer complainant S. Dey Chowdhury who happened to be the respondent no. 1 of this appeal in spite of receiving notice could not secure his appearance before this Commission to conduct his case. So, the appeal was heard in presence of Ld. Govt. Pleader who conducted the case of the appellant before this Commission.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

            Admitted position is that the vehicle in question was placed for auction sale by the Forest Authority, Govt. of West Bengal after confiscation of the same in due course. The complainant/respondent no. 1 has responded to the said auction sale notice and purchased the same by paying the considersation price of Rs. 55,020/- and the vehicle sold in auction was handed over to him by the DFO, Jaldapara and DFO, Jaldapara also approached the RTA, Cooch Behar for change the owner ship in the official record in respect of the said vehicle. But the RTA in spite of such direction of a high level Govt. official did not change the owner ship of the vehicle and in consequence the vehicle was remained in stationery condition for a considerable period and the complainant as a bona fide purchaser could not avail the service of the said vehicle and his name was not recorded in the motor vehicle registration of the concern department. Now, the question is whether the complainant comes within the purview of consumer or not as enunciated in the definition clause of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Here, the Seller is the Govt. official who has placed the said vehicle for auction sale by bidding and the complainant has purchased the same on the said auction sale and he got the possession of the vehicle in due course after observing all necessary formalities and the high-level Govt. official has handed over the said vehicle without attaching any incumbrance of the new purchaser. Now the question is whether the RTA was empowered or not to cause the necessary change of the ownership of the vehicle as it was hypothecated to a financial organization. He knows very well that when a popular Govt. places any article or property movable or immovable for auction sale in open bid then the purchaser of such auction sale after paying the bidding money is well entitled to get possession of the said property without any incumbrance. He had no liability to pay any further cost to get free the property from hypothecation or incumbrance. The RTA also holds a respectable position in a Govt. Department and he also knows very well that a purchaser who has purchased the property from the Govt. in auction he has every right to mutate his name in the official record and this mutation cannot be withheld by any Government Servant. Such type of withhold always speaks that there are some latches on the part of the said Govt. Agencies. Here, the purchaser of the vehicle is obviously a consumer under the Govt. of West Bengal and the one wing of Govt. of West Bengal has sold out the said vehicle in rightful and legal manner and therefore it casts upon the duty of the motor vehicle department to mutate the name of the new purchaser and if the mutation process still hangs on without any genuine reason, then definitely there is reasonable ground to presume that there was no bona fideness on the part of the said Govt. Agencies and the Ld. Forum has rightly observed that there was serious deficiency of service and lack of care and duty on the part of the RTA, Cooch Behar and for that reason, Ld. Forum has rightly adjudicated the consumer dispute within the periphery of the adjudicating process enunciated in the provisions of the CP Act, 1986. So, the order of the Ld. Forum should not be interfered in the process of appeal. On the other hand, the order of Ld. Forum directing the OP to pay Rs. 100/- per day, if the OP no. 1 fails to comply the order within 45 days should be rescinded so that it would be easy to comply the said order on the part of the RTA, Cooch Behar.

            It appears also to this Commission in the order of the Ld. Forum, there is absence of any speaking order regarding the fate of the vehicle as if it is lying in the same condition without any change of owner ship. So, the Commission thinks it fit to pass a reasonable order in respect of the vehicle to the perspective of the change of ownership. And if the complainant/respondent no. 1 still now intends to have a change of owner ship in the official record of the vehicle in his own name then he shall approach before the RTA, Cooch Behar in appropriate manner and by submitting a prayer in prescribed forms and deposits the appropriate fees then the RTA, Cooch Behar shall change the name of the ownership in the official record in favour of the complainant/respondent no. 1.

            Thus, the appeal appears to be devoids of any merit.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the instant appeal be and the same is hereby disposed of in terms of merit. The order of Ld. Forum, Cooch Behar dated 18/12/2015 in reference to CC/54/2014 is hereby affirmed but the order of the Ld. Forum directing the OP to pay Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay, if he fails to comply the order within 45 days is hereby rescinded. The opposite party no. 1/appellant is hereby directed by this commission to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation for pain, agony and harassment and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant/respondent no. 1 Subhojit Dey Chowdhury within 45 days from the date of receiving the copy of the order, failing which interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum shall be carried on over the awarded money. Passed by this commission.

The respondent/complainant is also entitled to mutate his name in the RTA official record to change the ownership of the vehicle, by furnishing his application in prescribed forms before the RTA, Cooch Behar by depositing the appropriate fees.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the concerned Ld. D.C.D.R.F through e-mail.