DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 309 of 21-11-2019

Decided on : 30-09-2021

Ramninder Singh Sidhu aged about 35 years, S/o Sh. Gurnam Singh, R/o # 325, Model Town, Phase I, Bathinda

........Complainant

Versus

The Regional Transport Officer, Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member.

Present

For the complainant : Sh. K S Brar, Advocate.

For opposite party : Exparte.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Ramninder Singh Sidhu (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Regional Transport Officer, Bathinda, (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle and applied for its fancy number PB-03Y-0005 with the opposite party. He deposited Rs. 12,500/- vide transsaction No. PBY1902225116922 dated 22-2-2019. The opposite party has not issued the said number to complainant. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda passed an order vide endorsement No. 1426-1430 dated 23-4-2019 and sanctioned the refund of Rs. 12,500/- to complainant, but the said amount has not been returned to complainant.

3. It is alleged that complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party to return/refund the said amount, but opposite party failed to do needful. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 14-8-2019 in this regard through his counsel, but to no effect. Now the opposite party flatly refused to accede to the request of complainant. The complainant has alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, which has caused great mental as well as physical agony and harassment to complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking directions of this Commission to the opposite party to refund Rs. 12,500/- with interest from the date of deposit till realization and pay Rs. 20,000/- as cost and compensation.

4. Upon notice, opposite party put an appearance through authorised representative and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Complaint has become infrucutous as the amount has already been refunded to him by Treasury Office, Bathinda. That the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.

5. It is pleaded that true facts are that complainant had applied online and deposited Rs. 12,500/- for allotment of Fancy number PB-03SAY-0005 for his vehicle but said number was not alloted to him. In the month of April, 2019, opposite party prepared bill for refund of the said amount to complainant and sent the same to Treasury Office, Bathinda, for passing and payment but said bill was returned by Treasury Office. On inquiry, concerned official told that the bill is to be submitted online. Then officials of opposite party telephonically contacted the head office seeking advice in the matter but they took time to give advise. In the meantime, complainant issued legal notice dated 14-8-2019 and then filed present complaint. The opposite party has pleaded they again sent the bill to Treasury Office and contacted the concerned official personaly. The opposite party got the bill clearned and payment of the same has been credited to the account of complainant online. There is no delay on the part of the opposite party.

6. On merits, opposite party has controverted all the material averments and reiterated its stand as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. In support of his version, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopy of bill (Ex. C-1), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-2), photocopy of office order (Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-5) and affidavit of complainant dated 21-11-2019 and closed the evidence.

8. To rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party tendered into evidence photocopy of order (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of refund bill (Ex. OP-1/2), photocopy of letter (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of order dated 23-4-2-19 (Ex. OP-1/4) and closed the evidence.

9. The opposite party appearance through authorised representative and filed reply and evidence. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party.

10. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record.

11. It is admitted fact that complainant applied for Fancy Number PB-03Y-0005 for his vehicle and deposited Rs. 12,500/- with the opposite party on 22-2-2019. The said number was not allotted to complainant. Accordingly, he applied for refund vide letter dated 27-3-2019 (Ex. C-2) and opposite party prepared Refund Bill dated 23-4-2019 (Ex. C-1) and Office Order dated 23-4-2019 was issued for crediting the refund amount in the account of complainant, but till the date of filing of this complaint refund was not made to complainant.

12. A perusal of record shows that when complainant did not receive his amount back, he got issued legal notice dated 14-8-2019 (Ex. C-9). The opposite party did not take any action even after receipt of notice then complainant filed present complaint on 21-11-2019. Only then, opposite party came into action and money of complainant was returned to him on 31-12-2019 vide Pay Order (Ex. OP-1/1). The opposite party took about a year time to return the amount of the complainant. Therefore, in-ordinate delay on the part of opposite party forced the complainant to knock the door of this Commission. Hence, this act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on his part. Since the disputed amount stands refunded, it would meet the ends of justice if an amount of Rs. 5,000/- is allowed to complainant as cost and compensation.

13. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of post of members.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:-

    30-09-2021

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member