Per Hon’ble Shri K.M.Lawande,  Member. 

1.   This appeal is arisen out of the judgement and order of District Forum Amravati in consumer complaint No. 2017/116 decided on 25/07/2018.This appeal is filed by the appellant who is the opponent No.1 and the respondent No.1is the complainant in the said complaint. Respondent No.2, 3 and 4 are the opponents No.2,3 and 4 in the consumer complaint. Parties are herein after referred  to as opponent and complainant as per their status in the original consumer complaint and the District  Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is referred to as district forum  for the sake of convenience.

2.  It is the case of complainant that he submitted application to opponent No.1 , for transfer of his motor driving license registered at Wardha RTO  to Amravati RTO along with the necessary NOC certificate of RTO Wardha. The requisite fees of Rs. 283.62 on 06/01/ 2017 and Rs. 180/- on 23/03/2017, amounting to  total Rs. 463.62/- was  paid to opponent No.1 towards the transfer fees . The  opponent No 2 dispatched  the  License to him on 23/03/2017. However, he did not receive it. The postman of  opponents 2 to 4 had negligently  returned the envelope containing the MDL to opponent No.1  on 27/03/2017 with remarks that address not traceable. He made complaints to the opponents No. 2 and 3 .The opponent No. 2 wrongly replied to him that the computer record is not showing that any envelope was received for delivery to him during the period of 27/03/2017 to 30/03)2017. He filed complaint before the district collector  under  Lokshahi Din program. The opponents did not respond to the directions of the collector. It was wrongly  replied by opponent No.1 that complainant  did not accept the envelope of License  though it was sent again. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant  filed consumer complaint against the opponents seeking directions to pay Rs. 15,000 /- towards physical and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and  damages.

3.  The opponent No.1 filed written version before the district forum and contended there in that the motor driving license was sent through envelope on the address of complainant on 27/03/2017. However, the envelope came to be returned with the remarks of postal employee that   addressee not traceable, therefore returned to the sender. After the complaint in Lokshahi Din before the district collector, the complainant was asked to collect the license vide  their letter dated  18/07/ 2017 of   opponent No.1, however he did not collect it . The envelope was again sent to complainant on his address on 13/09/2017, but it is again received back with the remarks of postal employee that the addressee refused to accept . It is further replied that the complainant can collect the Motor Driving License from the opponent No. 1 by hand. The opponent No.1 requested to dismiss the complaint against them.

4. The opponent number 2 , 3 and 4 ,the postal authorities filed their say before the district forum and denied the allegations. It is contended that the opponents attempted to deliver the envelope to the complainant sent by the opponent No. 1, however he was not traced at the address and second time he refused to accept the envelope. It is contended that there is no deficiency on their part and complaint is not liable against them.

5. The district forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opponent No 1 to deposit the license before Registrar of the district forum  within one month and administration of the forum shall deliver it to the complainant. The district forum further directed opponent No. 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 4,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days. The district forum also directed opponent number 2 ,3 and 4 to pay  compensation of Rs.1000/-and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation.

6. Being aggrieved bye the impugned judgement and order ,the opponent No. 1 has filed this appeal.

7. Advocate M.S.Bhagwat present fir the appellant. Complainant appeared in person. Opponents 2,3 and 4 gave appearance through their representative Shri.Ravindra Rotele .

8. After respective submissions of the parties, following points arose for our determination. We have noted them and answered them  for the reasons to follow.

REASONING

As to Points 1, 2

9.   The learned advocate for the appellant argued that the District Forum erred in entertaining the consumer complaint against upon number 1/RTO. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the appellant/ opponent number one is the statutory authority working on behalf of State Government and engaged in sovereign work of state. The licensee fees that has been received by the opponent  cannot be termed as consideration envisaged  under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opponent No.1 is not a office of profit nor any business centre, nor working for any monitory gain. The opponent No.1 is not the service provider for the complainant and the complainant is not their consumer. The opponent number one has dispatched the motor driving license to the complainant after receipt of requisite fees. However, the said envelope written by with the remarks that the addressee not found. This opponent is not liable for the non delivery of the licensee to the complainant. The complainant adamantly refused to accept the envelope containing the license on 16/09/201, when it was sent after his complaint before the District Collector. The impugned judgement and order of District Forum is erroneous in eyes of law. To support his contention that the opponent is not the service provider and the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer, the learned advocate of opponent kept reliance on following judgements.

(i) Hon. H.C. Orissa in RTO ……vs……Arun Kumar Behera and others, W.P.15884/20150 decided on 05/ 02/2020.

(ii) State Consumer Dispute  Redressal Commission Mumbai ,bench at Aurangabad in RTO VS Mitthu Manikrao Salunke , FA 629/2019.

(iii) State Consumer Dispute  Redressal Commission Mumbai main Bench  in Dy RTO ……vs….. Sunil Kisan Patil FA 537/1999 decided on 18/10/05

10.    The complainant remained absent for the arguments. However, his reply is there on the record. He has replied in cryptic language, which is rather very difficult to understand. We have attempted to gather  the contents of his submissions . It is contended by the complainant that after receipt of requisite fees paid by him for the renewal of license, the license was not made available to him. The opponent No. one is negligent in their service. The district forum has rightly decided the complaint. The opponents have not complied the order of District Forum. The opponent No.1 has not deposited the total decretal amount  before the district forum, but only deposited half of the amount. He is being harassed  as it is required for him to come to Nagpur.

11.  Though  opponents number 2,3 and 4 are served and already given appearance through their representative Shri Ravindra Rotele on 15/01/2019, remained absent before  this Commission for final hearing. Therefore, the appeal  is being decided taking into consideration that these opponents do not want say anything.

12. Discussions

In the case in hand, No. 1 appellant is the RTO and is a statutory authority involved in registration of vehicles and allied duties under Motor Vehicle Act. It appears that  the appellant has received certain amount of fees from complainant towards the transfer of his motor driving license. It is alleged by the complainant that the opponent No.1 is negligent in providing the service to the complainant as he could not receive his license at his residence. Though certain amount is received by the opponent No.1/appellant, whether the opponent No 1  RTO is the service provider and the complainant is consumer is a pertinent question before us. We have gone through the judgment of Hon. High court. Orissa in RTO vs  Arun Kumar Behera , cited supra . The Hon. High Court in para 9 of the judgement observed that,  in view of the statutory provisions mentioned above it is made clear that the Act is made to deal with the rights of consumers wherein good or services have been defined under the said Act. The Hon H.C. In para 10 , held that the permit granting authority is not a service provider and, therefore, the person ,who makes an application to the said authority for permit is not a consumer. Similar findings are recorded by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in judgements, cited in para 9 above, relied up on by the learned Advocate of the opponent No.1/appellant. Therefore, statutory body as RTO doing sovereign function can not be taken as service provider and the person paying any amount towards the fees for license etc. would not be covered under the definition of consumer. Hence, we answer point No.1in negative .

13.  The district forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opponent No 1 to deposit the license before Registrar of the district forum  within one month and administration of the forum shall deliver it to the complainant. The district forum further directed opponent number 1 to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 4,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days. The district forum also directed opponent number 2, 3 and 4 to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/-and Rs. 1,000 towards cost of litigation. It was for the district forum to see whether the complaint can be entertained by district forum under Consumer Protection Act 1986 and whether the fees deposited towards renewal of permit and the function of opponent No.1 for renewal of service is covering under consideration for services provided as required under Section 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it reveals that the district forum failed to decide this issue in proper legal perspective and wrongly decided the complaint against opponent No.1. It appears that the district forum discussed the issue of payment of fees by the complainant. The forum discussed on the point of  additional fees recovered from complainant, though it was not a issue raised by the complainant. The opponent No.1 has clarified that the additional  fees was recovered due to notification of the Central Government. Therefore, there requires interference in the order of district forum to the extent of opponent No.1 The opponents No. 2,3 and 4 are not present for the final arguments , nor they have submitted their say though already appeared through their representative already. Therefore, there requires no interference against the order made against them by the district forum. Hence, the order

ORDER

(i)    Appeal is hereby partly allowed.

(ii)  The order dated 25/07/2018 of the District Consumer Commission  

      Amravati  is hereby set aside as against O.P.No.1 and the  

      remaining order against O.P.Nos.2 to 4 is hereby retained.

(iii)  Copy of  order be furnished to both parties free of cost.