DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  17.01.2019                                                  Date of decision   :  03.06.2019

Viney Kumar Mutneja son of Shri Farangi Lal, resident of Flat No.123, Block-D, Bollywood Heights-2, Peer Muchalla, Zirakpur-140603 (Punjab).

…….Complainant

Versus

The Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport Office, Sector 76, SAS Nagar Mohali 160055 (Punjab).

                                                      ……..Opposite Party   

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:    Shri G.K. Dhir, President,

                Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                OP Ex-parte.

Order by :-  Shri G.K. Dhir, President.

Order

               Complainant purchased new Renault-Capture car in May, 2018 and being permanent resident of Zirakpur, approached dealing official of OP for deposit of registration fee and also for getting fancy number. Complainant was allotted Unique Login ID and Password and thereafter was guided to approach the vendors sitting outside the office complex for deposit of registration fee because those were to be deposited online only. Complainant accordingly approached one of those vendors, who tried 2/3 times for deposit of registration charges, but transaction could not be completed due to some connectivity problem or due to slowness in E-Vahan Web-portal of Govt. of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The vendor could not succeed in deposit of registration fee online. Thereafter vendor searched for some fancy number from Vaahan Portal and complainant choose fancy registration number “PB-65-AD-6000”, which was available on payment of Rs.12,500/- as fee. The vendor initiated online payment process by filling all the details. Fee payment option was initiated through user ID and Transaction Password. Computer started process of transaction, but it took inordinate time and finally connectivity was lost. Status of transaction was shown failed at about 1.00 P.M. on 21.05.2018.  The vendor tried to re-Login and extract receipt for payment, but every time the screen did show “Transaction Already Pending – Please check failed/pending transaction”. Finally after waiting for 2-3 hours, the vendor and complainant decided to try on next day. As the password issued by office of RTI was valid for one day i.e. 21.05.2018 only and as such complainant himself tried for payment of registration fee at home and finally remained successful in making online payment of Rs.65,889/- at about 7.00 P.M.  on 21.05.2018. Complainant again visited office of RTO on 22.05.2018 and met the same vendor for checking status of allotment of fancy number for which payment attempts were made on 21.05.2018, but the system showed non availability of chosen number. On the screen, status of transaction was shown as “Transaction Already Pending – Please check failed/pending transaction”. Complainant contacted dealing official of RTO Office, who guided that since the transaction could not be completed and as such system will automatically refund the amount in the same account, if any, debited from the account. Complainant was advised to choose another fancy number and re-deposit the fee. As the already chosen number was blocked due to failed transaction and as such dealing official of OP assured for automatic refund of failed transaction. Complainant was to report back for his duty at Agra at the earliest possible and as such complainant opted for another fancy number by choosing new number as “PB-65-AS-3001” for which online payment from same vendor made on 22.05.2018 at 11.27 A.M. Thereafter the complete file alongwith tax receipt and fancy number receipt was submitted by complainant in the office of OP on 22.05.2018. On 23.05.2018 complainant received telephone call from the vendor for informing that an amount of Rs.12,500/- which was debited on 21.05.2018 has not been credited back and that is why he collected his payment from the complainant. Receipt of Rs.12,500/- was handed over to complainant.  Thereafter complainant contacted OP and even submitted written request on 23.05.2018 alongwith copies of receipts showing deposit of money. Complainant was assured that refund will be got issued within 4-6 weeks. After about 3 weeks, complainant got message from OP for calling upon him to provide self signed copy of his Aadhar Card in proof of ID for processing refund. Self signed copy of Aadhar card alongwith signed receipt of Rs.12,500/-  was submitted by complainant, but thereafter amount has not been refunded, despite the fact that complainant visited office of OP 4-5 times during period from July to September, 2018. Each time complainant was advised to wait for more time. Finally on 08.10.2018 the Section Authority in the office of OP showed his helplessness in refunding amount of Rs.12,500/-. No response/reply was received in respect of refund and that is why this complaint filed for directing OP to refund deposited amount of Rs.12,500/- with interest @ 12%. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.1.00 lakh and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- more claimed.  

2.             In reply submitted by OP, it is claimed that there is no provision in the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 or the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 for refund of sought for amount of Rs.12,500/- deposited for having fancy registration No.PB-65-AD-6000, but despite that matter has been referred to Head Office vide letter No.450 dated 14.03.2019 for advice. That advice is sought as to whether amount of Rs.12,500/- may be refunded to complainant or not. Complainant himself opted to participate in e-auction and as such he cannot blame OP for deficiency in service. After giving his bid for e-auction complainant should have waited for clearance of transaction made by him, but he chose to have another registration number of his choice namely PB-65-AS-3001 for his vehicle by depositing fee and as such it is claimed that fault lies with complainant himself. Prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             As per latest guidelines issued by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh, documents alongwith self attested affidavit needs be taken in consideration for disposal of the complaint and as none turned up for OP despite wait, and as such after proceeding OP as ex-parte, arguments of complainant heard and records gone through.

4.             Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that complainant booked registration No.PB-65-AD-6000 by making online payment of Rs.12,500/- on 21.05.2018 at 01.02 P.M. That transaction of online payment remained successful as per Ex.C-4. So certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that he paid online fee for booking of registration number PB-65-AD-6000. Despite success of transaction of online payment, said number not allotted to complainant because complainant kept on getting information as if the transaction already pending and as such he should check as to whether transaction is failed or it is pending. This is reflected in Ex.C-1. Transaction number given in Ex.C-1 is the same as the transaction number given in Ex.C-4 as PBY1805217639436. So certainly submission advanced by complainant has force that despite online payment of Rs.12,500/- transaction regarding allotment of booked number namely PB-65-AD-6000 remained unsuccessful, even though the MV tax for that transaction of amount of Rs.64,869/- plus new registration charges of Rs.600/- etc. deposited by him on 21.05.2018 itself at 19:04:50 hours as reflected in Ex.C-2. As complainant could not get any response regarding this transaction and the desired booked number was not allotted to him and nor any intimation given to him and that is why complainant claims to have got booked another number PB-65-AS-3001 by making online payment of Rs.5,000/- through receipt Ex.C-3 dated 22.05.2018. Time of issue of this receipt Ex.C-3 mentioned as 11.27 A.M. and as such it is obvious that case of complainant is believable that though he deposited advance fee of Rs.12,500/- and even the registration charges, but despite that the vendor appointed by office of RTO failed to disclose status of allotment of desired number by him.

5.             Even if assuming for arguments sake that complainant took part in e-auction held on 21.05.2018, as claimed through written statement, despite that it was the responsibility of OP to update the website by night of 21.05.2018 for disclosing status of transaction of booking of desired fancy number by complainant. However, that status was not updated and that is why vendor contacted by complainant expressed inability for claiming that desired choosen number PB-65-AD-6000 has not been allotted to complainant.  Complainant claims himself to be in service at Agra and as such certainly he could not have kept on waiting for days together for allotment of desired number in e-auction after deposit of Rs.12,500/-. However, status of transaction not updated even on next day and as such there was no option with complainant except to choose new fancy number, which he did by deposit of fee through online payment as reflected by receipt Ex.C-3. Complainant applied for refund of paid amount of Rs.12,500/- by submitting application Ex.C-5 and sending registered notice Ex.C-6 alongwith reminder Ex.C-7 through postal receipt Ex.C-8, but nothing done by OP and as such complainant was virtually harassed by OP in not doing the needful. OP itself in its reply has taken a plea that it has written to the higher authorities for seeking advice for refund of Rs.12,500/- and as such said action of OP itself shows as if fault lay with OP in not disclosing about result of transaction of booking of fancy number held on 21.05.2018. Being so, entitlement of complainant for refund of amount of Rs.12,500/- is there.

6.             Even if provisions of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 or the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1925 for refund of fee of fancy number may not be there, despite that equitable consideration demands that OP must not retain the amount paid by a consumer, for which the services not rendered by it. In case OP allowed to retain booking fee of Rs.12,500/-, sans rendering services, then it will amount to allowing OP to have unjust enrichment. That is not legally permissible. Fault exclusively lay with OP in not disclosing result of e-auction of fancy number PB-65-AD-6000 because of not updating the status, even after acceptance of registration fee and the booking charges for such registration.

7.             In case titled as Surinder Pal Vs. District Transport Officer, Ludhiana & another, bearing First Appeal No.1174 of 2015 decided on 02.06.2016, it has been held that even if Punjab Right to Service Act, 2011 may have been enacted, despite that remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act to a consumer against the transport authorities for the deficient services is an additional remedy, due to which consumer complaint is maintainable. As complainant stood mentally harassed due to deficient services provided by OP, and as such complainant is entitled to reasonable amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP will refund amount of Rs.12,500/- to complainant with interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 21.05.2018 till payment. Compensation for mental agony and harassment of Rs.3,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against  OP.   Payment of amount of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 40 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Certified copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

June 03, 2019

                                                                (G.K. Dhir)

                                                                President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member