Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/975/2019

Ashok Kumar Prajapat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Transport Department Haryana - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Oct 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/975/2019
Date of Institution	:	30/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	11/10/2019

 

Ashok Kumar Parjapat, Resident of Village Mohla, District Hisar, Haryana – 125 042.

…..Complainant

                                   

V E R S U S

 

[1]     Transport Department Haryana, Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh – 160001, through its Manager/concerned Sub-Divisional Office.

 

[2]     Financial Commissioner, Health Department Haryana, New Secretariat, Sector 17, Chandigarh – 160017. 

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY

:

Complainant in person.

 

PER RATTAN SINGH THAKUR, PRESIDENT

1.         Heard. It is the case of the Complainant, on 16.02.2018 he visited Haryana Transport Department at Hansi in connection with registration of vehicle HR20AF7981 and found problem of smoking. He contacted the Authorities, however, no action was taken. His further case is, Registering Authority had charged a fee of Rs.150/- and Rs.350/- i.e. for smart card etc. and the life of smart card is 10 years and that of the fitness of the vehicle is 15 years. Another grouse of the Complainant is, the Form provided to him was not in ‘Hindi’. These are the precise grouses of the Complainant. 
2.         We have given careful thought to the allegations made in the Complaint and documents annexed therewith. 
3.         The Complaint is vague as it is not made out who among the employees of the Opposite Parties had facilitated the smoking by the persons at public place. Our domain is to travel within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1896. If someone was smoking at public place, the Police could have been swung into action by the Complainant. However, it was not disclosed why the matter was not brought to the notice of the Police.
4.         The Complainant further claimed that smart card life is 10 years. How he opined it, is not understandable that it will come to an end after 10 years? These were provided by the State under the relevant Rules and it is not the Forum where a challenge could be made to the said Rules. Not only this, the case of the Complainant is, the Proforma given to him was in ‘English’ and was not in ‘Hindi’ and he had some trouble in reading the English language. The copy of the said proforma has not been produced. The Complainant seems to be an educated person and English is also a compulsory subject upto Graduation and it is not the case of the Complainant that he is uneducated. If he is uneducated, how he reads and writes the Hindi is ridiculous. The compensation claimed by the Complainant is Rs.4,00,000/- along with Rs.20,000/- towards costs of litigation for his personal gains.  What health hazard and loss suffered by the Complainant is not disclosed. We must remind, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is for the bonafide consumers and cannot be used as a tool to harass the public authorities or to extract money with the use of the authority of the District Forum. Bundle of facts not disclosed in Consumer Complaint how Complainant falls in category of defined Consumer.
5.         Per record, we do not find it a case to be covered under the relevant Act within our domain. We proceed to dismiss the Complaint at preliminary stage, without being admitted.
6.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/10/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”