Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/192/2022

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Transport Department Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/192/2022
Date of Institution	:	14/02/2022
Date of Decision	:	20/11/2023

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, S/o Sh.Dalbir Singh, R/o Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana - 125042.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Commissioner, Transport Department Haryana, 30 Beige Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer (Na), Sub-Divisional Office, Narnaund, Hisar-125033.
3. Superintendent, General Services-1, Branch, Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Haryana Secretariat, Sector-1, Chandigarh-160001.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.A.P.S.Virk, ADA for OPs alongwith Sh.Sunil Kumar, Reader and Sh.Kuldeep, Clerk, O/o Sub-Division Office, Narnaund.

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.      From the perusal of allegations made in the consumer complaint, it appears on 18.3.2020, the complainant had sent his representative/ brother to the office of the OP No.2 for changing the title of registration of his vehicle HR07W-5259, and receipt for Rs.580/- 18.03.2020 was issued (photocopy is attached at page No.15. It is further stated that receipt was given for Rs 580/- whereas Rs 590/- was collected. It is also stated that due to this negligence and mistake of the office staff of the OP 1/2, he has to pay Rs.30/- for sub- point “A” of point-2 above, sub- point of Rs.100/- for “B”, sub- point - Extra recovery of Rs.10/- for "C" and sub- point - Rs.10/- for "D" which makes a total of Rs.150/-) Economic loss has also been caused. It felt stressful and was also a violation of consumer rights. Rules have been made by the respondents but due to lack of proper assurance of their compliance and practicality, he had to endure all these irregularities. He took up the matter with the OPs but with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint. In the present case the stand of the OPs is that the claim made by the complainant for not providing the Form 23A in Hindi language does not fall under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules are notified by the Central Government for the uniformity and State Government cannot make changes to it. It is further stated that no verifiable proof regarding demand of extra 10 rupees by any employee has been submitted by the complainant which can be inquired upon. No extra money except applicable as per provisions of the Act and applicable fees like postal, user etc., is charged in this office. There is neither any deficiency in service nor harassment by the OPs. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs. 
3.     No rejoinder filed by the complainant.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that the OP No.2 overcharged Rs.10 for the purpose of preparing registration certificate of his vehicle and the OPs have issued registration certificate with undue delay and also have raised the issue of non-providing documents in the Hindi language.
7.      As per the complaint, the complainant is resident of village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana and the disputed registration certificate in question was issued by office at Narnaund, Hisar. Therefore, the case lacks the territorial jurisdiction.
8.     If we consider the case on merits on the question of overcharging of Rs.10, there is no such concrete evidence on record which can prove the allegation of the complainant and most importantly the issue raised regarding the overcharging has not been mentioned in the prayer clause of the complaint which clearly shows the motive of the complainant. In our opinion just to get the complaint admitted, he raised the false issue/allegation regarding the overcharge.
9.     For the point to be considered regarding the receiving of the RC on wrong address is concerned, there is no iota of evidence on record which shows that the address mentioned in the documents/proforma provided by the complainant was mismatching with the RC.
10.     Further, the complaint has raised the issue of non-providing the documents in the Hindi language. In our opinion these documents are provided by the State under the relevant rules and the challenge cannot be made to said rules before the Commission. The complainant seems to be an educated person and also English is a compulsory subject upto graduation and it is not the case of the complainant that he is uneducated. The compensation claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and the costs of litigation as Rs.20,000/- seems only for his personal gain. We must remind, the Consumer Protection Act is for the bona fide consumers and cannot be used as a tool to harass the public authorities or to extract money with the use of platform of District Commission. We do not find any merit in the case, therefore, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

10.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
			Pawanjit Singh
			President
			Sd/-
20/11/2023			Surjeet Kaur
Ls			Member
			Sd/-
			Suresh Kumar Sardana
			Member