Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/187

Ravinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Transpoirt Athority - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

11 Feb 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         187 of 2018

Date of Institution:      19.11.2018

Date of Decision :       11.02.2019

 

Ravinder Kumar aged about 48 years s/o Raghubir Chand r/o Railway Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

 

...Complainant

Versus

The Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot.

                             ....Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Ms Vandna Sidhu, Member,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

 

Present:      Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

        OPs Exparte.

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                 Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to issue Driving License to complainant and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

 

cc no. 187 of 2018

2                                    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant applied for issuance of driving license before OP vide application no.1141517 and completed all formalities and also deposited requisite fees of Rs.1000/- vide receipt dated 30.06.2017 and further deposited Rs.250/-for DL Track vide receipt dated 17.10.2017 and complainant also cleared the track test conducted on 23.10.2017 and after taking his photographs, concerned official assured him of issuance of driving license within fortnight. Despite repeated requests, OP failed to issue him driving license and in July, 2018 OP returned his file for issuance of driving license on false pretext that now licenses are being applied through on-line system and as such, Opposite Party is unable to issue him driving license. Complainant also served legal notice dated 5.07.2018 to OP wherein requested to issue him driving license, but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he is entitled for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  complaint.

3                                     The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 28.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                              Notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to OP, but despite service of

cc no. 187 of 2018

notice, OP did not appear in the Forum on date fixed and then after long waiting till 4.00 pm, Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte.

5                                    As there is no rebuttal, therefore, ld  counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                     Ld Counsel for complainant in exparte arguments vehemently argued that complainant applied for issuance of driving license before Regional Transport Office, Faridkot vide proper application and deposited requisite fees of Rs.1000/- against receipt dated 30.06.2017 and further deposited Rs.250/-for DL Track vide receipt dated 17.10.2017. Complainant cleared the track test conducted on 23.10.2017 and thereafter, concerned official assured him of issuance of driving license within fortnight but despite repeated requests, OP failed to issue him driving license and in July, 2018 OP returned his file for issuance of driving license on pretext that now licenses are being applied through on-line system and as such, Opposite Party is unable to issue him driving license. Legal notice dated 5.07.2018 issued by complainant to OP also served no purpose. This act of non issuance of driving license to complainant has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief.

7                                              We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have also gone through the pleadings and evidence

cc no. 187 of 2018

placed on record by complainant. The case of the complainant is that he applied for driving license and also deposited requisite fees. He also cleared track test got conducted by Opposite Party, but despite clearance of track test, OP did not issue him driving license on the ground that for obtaining driving license, he should apply through on line system. To prove his pleadings, he has relied on document Ex C-5 that is copy of receipt which proves that complainant deposited requisite fee of Rs.1000/-with opposite party for the purpose of obtaining driving license. Ex C-3 is copy of status report which shows that complainant cleared the track test got conducted by OP and status of same is revealed as P meaning thereby he passed the test. Ex C-6 is copy of learners license issued by OP to complainant Ex C-7 is copy of application submitted by complainant to OP for issuance of driving license. ExC-2 is copy of legal notice issued by complainant to OP wherein he made requests to OP to issue him driving license. Through his affidavit ExC-1 he has reiterated his pleadings and further made requests to issue him driving license.

8                                           Ld counsel for complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove the case of complainant. Documents placed on record by complainant are fully authentic and there is no reason to doubt the same. It is observed that when complainant has already completed the mandatory formalities, deposited requisite fees and has also cleared the track test got conducted by opposite party then, there is no reason for OP in not issuing him driving

cc no. 187 of 2018

license. Action of OP in not releasing driving license to complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

9                                                        We are fully convinced with the evidence, arguments and case law produced by the Counsel for the complainant. The complainant succeeds in proving this case, so the present complaint in hand is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to issue driving license to complainant within one month of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and litigations expenses incurred by him. Compliance of this order be made within prescribed period, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 11.02.2019

 

(Vandna Sidhu)   (Param Pal Kaur)            (Ajit Aggarwal)  

                     Member             Member                   President