DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. No. 218/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.07.2022 12.07.2022 27.12.2022
Complainant/s:- | Sri Gouranga Das, S/o. Harasit Das, residing at Ogg Road, Noapara, P.O.Garulia, P.S. Noapara, Pin-743133, Dist- 24 Parganas (North). -Vs – |
Opposite Party/s:- | The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office (RT)), 24 Parganas North, Barasat, Kolkata -124. |
P R E S E N T :- Shri Debasis Mukhopadhyay…………President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.
:- Sri Abhijit Basu……………………….Member
JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER
This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complainant stated that in order to earn his livelihood he had applied for getting the route permit vide Route No.237(Shyamnagar Chowrangee to Barrackpore Station) in the year 2017 before the opposite party and the complainant had submitted an application by complying all the required formalities and criteria on 14.12.2017 which was received by the O.P. The complainant has also paid all the requisite fees as per government norms but in spite of complying all the terms and conditions the complainant did not receive any reply and no such permit was granted by the O.P. The complainant on various occasions approached the O.P to know the status of the application but without any result. The complainant is passing his days under serious helpless condition to earn his livelihood and maintain his family. Finding no other alternative the complainant sent one legal notice to O.P but the O.P did not do anything. Hence the complainant filed this case praying for direction to the O.P to consider the application dated 14.12.2017 filed by the complainant and also for compensation and cost. The opposite party submitted letter to the President, DCDRC vide memo No.2605/MV/BST dated 26.08.2022 along with memo No. 2604/ MV/BST dated 26.08.2022 which was treated as the written version of the O.P. The O.P vide such memo stated that it was found from the documents submitted by the petitioner that receipt date is showing 14.12.2017 but no office record is found to verify the genuinety of this letter. It is further stated that as per notification No. 268-WT/3M-01/2010 dated 29.01.2010 (COL-1) of Transport Department, Government of West Bengal Notification No. 3838-WT/TR/3M-51/2010 dated 03.10.16 of Transport Department, Government of West Bengal, no new Auto Riksha permit will be allowed in Kolkata Metropoliton area. However, it was informed to the petitioner on 25.08.2022 vide Memo No. 2591/MV/BST(Annexure 3) regarding non acceptance of his prayer as per said notifications. The O.P prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant by filing written argument submitted that the Complainant is passing his days under serious helpless condition because of the non issuance of the route permit as applied for by the Complainant. He submitted that the act of Opposite Party is gross negligence and deficiency in service and therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C. C. No. 218/2022
None appeared to argue the case on behalf of the O.P.
Considering the contention of the parties from all the materials on record it is found that the Complainant applied for the route permit and the O.P. accepted the application and the Complainant had deposited the requisite fees that was duly accepted by the O.P. A copy of the document of payment of fee of Rs. 540/- was marked Ext. – 1.
When the Complainant applied for the route permit and O.P. accepted the requisite fees then it can be presumed that the O.P after processing the application found it satisfactory and then ordered for payment of the fee or there was invitation for the application with requisite fees in which case definitely there was requirement of issuance of route permit by the authority concerned. But afterwards nothing was informed to the Complainant by the O.P. regarding the fate of the application resulting filing of this case by the Complainant. Now the O.P. before this Forum informed that the issuance of route permit was stopped by a circular and the same was communicated to the Complainant but no such letter of communication was produced by O.P. The O.P also could not say anything that after such alleged circular the O.P. never issued any permit to anybody or when the last such permit was issued or to whom so that the contentions of the O.P. could be verified.
The O.P. accepted the requisite fees for the permit means that the O.P. was progressing to issue such permit by inviting proposals ignoring the alleged circular. Now the O.P. only contended that the issuance of permit was stopped due to the circular but such contention appears to be not bonafide since the application was invited and requisite fee was accepted vide Ext. – 1. Apart from the alleged circular the O.P. did not say about anyting regarding any defect in the application of Complainant.
The Complainant is an unemployed youth and now he is passing his days under serious helpless condition and he is unable to earn his livelihood for his family as per evidence of Complainant. Therefore the O.Ps conduct was definitely an act of negligence and deficiency of service. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get the relief as prayed for and the case succeeds.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the O.P. is to consider the Complainant’s application dated 14/12/2017 afresh and issue a permit for an Auto-Rickshaw to the Complainant as prayed for in the route specified by the Complainant or alternatively in a nearby route to the convenience of the Complainant within 06 months from this date or at the first chance whenever such permit will be issued in future taking the cause of Complainant with utmost priority.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & Corrected by
President
Member Member President
