DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
Date of Filing: 25.09.2021.
CC/157/2021
Jiji Baby,
S/o. Baby Dominic,
Paraveettil House,
Kottopadam Post, Mannarkkad,
Palakkad-678 583.
(party in person) - Complainant
Vs
The RTO Officer,
RTO, Civil Station,
Mannarkkad-678 852.
- Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A, Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant filed an application for renewal of his vehicle’s permit (Auto rickshaw No.KL50F6457) before the opposite party on 26.06.2019. The permit was supposed to be delivered on 01.07.2019 and as per that the complainant applied for the fitness test of his vehicle on that date and paid Rs.600/- for that. He got the test date on 2nd July 2019. But because of the dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party, the complainant did not get the permit in time. It was issued only on 01.12.2020 and because of the Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant did not get fitness certificate for his vehicle. His only source of livelihood is the income from the Auto rickshaw and without the fitness certificate, he could not use it and suffered financial loss on account of that. Further because of the non-use, now the vehicle is not in working condition. All these happened because of the Deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The conduct of the opposite party had caused great mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.
So this complaint is filed to get compensation of Rs.3 lakh from the opposite party for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The pleadings of the opposite party in their version is as follows.
The registered owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL 50 F 6457, Auto rickshaw submitted an application before the opposite party for renewal of permit on 26.06.2019 along with the following documents; permit valid upto 16.07.2019, fitness valid upto 24.07.2019 and insurance valid upto 05.07.2019.
The vehicle was under Hypothecation with Union Bank of India, Pottassery Branch and at the time of submission of application for renewal of permit, NOC (No objection Certificate) from the financier was not enclosed. As per Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, NOC from the financier is mandatory for consideration of permit renewal.
Later on NOC from the financier is produced on 29.06.2019 and the permit was issued on 24.07.2019. Eventhough the applicant remitted fee for CF test on 01.07.2019, he could not process the proceedings of fitness test in time and did not produce the vehicle for inspection.
On 11.06.2020, notice was issued to the complainant from the opposite party’s office demanding fitness and valid insurance, but the complainant submitted the insurance with effect from 22.11.2020 on November 2020, which was already expired on 05.07.2019. The opposite party’s office issued proceedings for obtaining certificate of fitness after the production of valid insurance.
The complainant is not eligible to avail fine exemption under Covid protocol, since it was ordered with effect from 01.02.2020. The complainant did not produce vehicle within time. The complainant is subjected to remit belated fine of Rs.100/- per month from 24.07.2019 to 01.02.2020 as per Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. The complaint is without any merit and it has to be dismissed.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following points were framed for consideration.
Eventhough the first issue was not framed at the time of framing of issues, we took it as a preliminary issue as it is a foundational question to be considered.
1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the C.P Act and whether the complaint is maintainable before the Commission?
2. If Yes, Whether the parties were diligent and prompt in following procedures, in terms of pleadings and documentary evidence?
3. Whether there is any Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. If, so what is the relief as to cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked from his side. Opposite party did not file proof affidavit and there was no representation from opposite party’s part after the filing of the version. So the opposite party was set ex parte. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
Point No:1
6. The first point is to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act? and whether the service rendered by the RTO comes under ‘Service’ as per the Consumer Protection Act? are the main issues to be considered.
The complainant’s contention is that he approached the RTO office for the renewal of his permit and submitted necessary documents and remitted the fee for that. Due to the delay in giving renewal of permit, he suffered mental agony and financial loss. According to him all these happened due to the opposite party’s dereliction of duty and filed this complaint for getting compensation from him.
The Orissa High Court in Regional Transport Officers Vs Arun Kumar Behera and others WP (C) No. 15884 of 2015 held that “Inorder to satisfy the requirement of definition of ‘Consumer’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a transaction for consideration. The prime consideration is whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, so as to attract the provisions of the Act, otherwise the Act itself is not applicable. The Commission created under the Consumer Protection Act cannot deal with the issue concerning the discharge of statutory function by the statuary authorities.
Granting of permit is a statutory function conferred upon the statutory authority. Any person aggrieved by any omission or commission on the part of the permit granting authority can prefer appeal/revision before the specified authority under the statute.
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. The Hon’ble court further stated that granting of permit is statutory in nature and the said functions are not discharged for consideration.”
In Regional Transport Office Vs Mittu Manik Rao Salunke (FA 629/2019) the Hon’ble SCDRC, Maharashtra held in appeal that “The District Consumer forum has to see, whether the complaint can be entertained by District Forum under the C.P Act 1986 and whether the fees deposited towards renewal of permit and the function of opposite party 2 (RTO) for renewal of service is covering under consideration for services provided, as required under Section 2(d) of CP Act 1986. Certainly as submitted by appellant, RTO is governing sovereign body of the Government and functioning for collecting fees like revenue for registration, or issuing permit to run the vehicle on road, for carrying goods which is governed under Motor Vehicle Act, and for the grievances about the functioning of its officers there is Motor Vehicle Tribunal established under section 89 of the Act.”
By applying the above dictums to the case in hand, it is clear that the amount deposited by the complainant as fees towards the renewal of permit is not ‘consideration’ under the C.P act and the discharge of statuary authority vested with the Opposite parties is not coming under the term ‘service’ as defined in the Act and he is not a service provider. He is only discharging his statutory duties and cannot be held liable for his acts.
So the compliant is not maintainable before the commission and it is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 31st day of October, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1- Copy of Certificate of Registration.
Ext.A2 –Copy of Insurance for the period 06.07.2018 to 05.07.2019.
Ext. A3-Copy of permit from 17.07.2019 to 16.07.2024.
Ext.A4-Copy of receipt for remittance of fee .
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party : NIL
Witness examined on the side of the complainant :-Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:-NIL
Cost : Nil
