(Delivered on 24/11/2017)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The instant appeal is filed  against  the order of the District Forum,  Nagpur  passed in  complaint No. 259/2005, dated 23/06/2006  partly granting the complaint and  directing   as below.

i.        Opposite party  Nos. 2&3 (short for O.P.) to provide the complainant  the essential papers  like R.C. and  T.,C. Book  of the vehicle  without  charging  any additional  fee.

ii.       The O.P.No.2 to provide Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency in service and  O.P.No. 3 to provide Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency  in service totalling to Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant.

iii.      The amount  directed  in the  above clause  be recovered  by  O.P.No.3 from  the pay of the  concerned officer /Chief Accountant.

iv.      The O.P.Nos. 2&3 to provide Rs.1000/- for physical and mental  harassment  and Rs. 1000/- as a cost totalling to Rs. 2000/- each  to the complainant .

iv.      The above order be complied  in the span of one month from the date of the order.

2.      The complainant  herein filed a complaint  that  in March-1998 he enquired  for the purchase of  Maruti -800 vehicle from  O.P.No. 2 which  gave him  the cost  to be Rs. 2,17,917/- and  said that  by adding  some  charges for  registration and  insurance  the total price would be Rs.2,31,896/-.

3.      The complainant therefore,  took a loan  of  the amount and  paid  it  to O.P.No.2 for which  O.P.No. 2 gave him a receipt of Rs. 2.17.917/- and  a receipt  of Rs. 5,129/- for insurance. He took the vehicle for the registration to  O.P. No. 3, the  Regional Transport Officer, whose officers  gave him  the registration  number  - MH-31/Z-5345 for the  vehicle. However, told complainant   that  the R.C. and T.C. Book would be given  after  four  to  five days. However, O.P. Nos. 2&3  did not give him the  R.C.and T.C. Book.

4.      On 22/06/2004 he  received  a notice from  O.P. No. 3 to deposit  the road tax. Therefore, the complainant gave repeated  request on  08/09/2004, 13/04/2005, 02/06/2005 and  requested for the  paper of the vehicle. However, the O.P. Nos. 1,2&3 did not  reply in spite of receiving the notice. The complainant  therefore filed a complaint on 01/08/2005 claiming deficiency  in service against  the  O.P.Nos. 1 to3 with  a prayer to provide him a compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- with interest at the  rate of 8% p.a. from 12/03/1998 till actual  realization for the  loss and  damages  and  Rs.25,000/- towards  cost  of the complaint.

5.      On notice  the  O.Ps. appeared and countered  the complaint.

a.      The O.P. No. 1 denied  any  consumer  relation  with the complainant and stated that  as the  complaint is not  concerned with the manufacture of the vehicle it has no  responsibility of  the complainant.  Therefore, requested to the  dismiss the  complaint also raising the ground  of delay of  more than seven years for the complaint.

b.      The O.P.No. 2 denied the complaint and submitted that  the  impugned  vehicle  was delivered  by O.P.No. 2 to one Rajesh Heda as per  delivery  memo dated 03/03/1998 who is a  agent  who used to  book the vehicles  from  O.P.No. 2 and sale  them in the open market.  The complainant  purchased  the vehicle from this Rajesh Heda. Hence, he be impleaded  as O.P. However,  the  impugned  vehicle  delivered by  O.P.No.2 to Shri Heda might  have been sold by him  but  the  charges for R.C. and T.C. Book  were not received by the  O.P.No. 2. The O.P.No. 2  submitted that  as per the letter of  Shri Rajesh Heda dated 12/03/1998 a bill of sale  in the name of  Sunil Padole, the complainant  is prepared and  the  sale  certificate was also given in the name of complainant as per the request of Shri Rajesh Heda. The O.P. claimed that it received only  Rs.2,17,917/- as cost  of the  vehicle. Hence,  the  vehicle was delivered  with  required papers to the  complainant who admitted  to get the  vehicle  registered at  his  cost. The vehicle was given on 03/03/1998 because of the pressure by Shri Rajesh  Heda along with papers. The complainant got the registration number   from  O.P. No. 3  which indicates that  he was given  all the required  papers by O.P. No. 2 hence,  denied any deficiency in service along with  request to  dismiss  the complaint  for non  joinder of required  person.

c.       The O.P. No. 3 did not appear before District Consumer Forum in spite of notice hence,  declared  exparte.

6.      The learned Forum heard the parties before it and considered the evidence. The learned Forum  held that  the evidence  shows that  the  vehicle was not purchased  through  the agent  Rajesh Heda  and  no evidence  that  they were  involved  in the transaction.

7.      The learned Forum also held that the complaint is not barred by limitation as the purchase of vehicle is not the  issue  in the complaint but not getting papers is the complaint. Hence, complaint is not barred.  The complainant  procured  the letter  of O.P.No.3 dated 22/06/2004 which  shows that  he received  the  registration number from the Chief Accountant of  O.P.No. 3 on 12/03/1998 in which, he is shown to have not deposited the required amount of tax  and the papers. This shows that the O.P.No. 2 did not provide the required papers for registration to the complainant. The letter of the O.P. No. 3 dated 22/06/2004 also  shows that the registration is given after submission of proper papers only.  However, the O.P. No. 3 till  the year 2004 did not ask any papers to complainant or showed any evidence to have asked for the papers to the complainant from the purchase date of the vehicle dated 12/03/1998. Therefore, giving the registration number  but not  giving the  R.C. and T.C. Book is  deficiency in service  on the part of  the O.P.No.3 who also  kept  silent  for collecting  the tax till 2004 when the complainant  purchased the vehicle  in 1998.

8.      The learned Forum  therefore,  held that  O.P. Nos. 2&3 have committed unfair trade practice and  deficiency in service.  However,  O.P. No. 1 is not  responsible  for  the  non  providing  of  papers  hence,  not responsible for  deficiency in service.

9.      Thus  considering the prayer  and holding  the  O.Ps. responsible, the learned Forum passed the order supra.

10.    Aggrieved against the order, the O.P.No. 3 filed this  appeal. Hence,  referred as appellant. Advocate  Mr. Mendhe filed written notes of argument. However, remained absent for  oral argument.  The original complainant  is referred as  respondent No. 1 who  remained present in  person and filed written notes of argument. Original O.P.No. 1 is referred as  respondent  No. 2 and Advocate Shri Karbhari filed written notes of argument  on its behalf.  Original O.P.No. 2 is referred as respondent No. 3 but remained  absent and also did not file written notes of  argument.

11.    The appellant in written notes of argument submitted that  it  did not receive the  notice  for District Consumer Forum below  which was meant  for Regional Transport  Office, Nagpur. Therefore, could not remain present  before the Forum and  file their say. However,  they received the impugned order on 19/09/2006 and  found it  to be  against  them.

12.    The appellant  further  submitted that  the learned Forum  should have seen that  the respondent  No. 1 purchased the vehicle  in the year  1998 and  should have  certainly raised  the ground  of not getting  the  R.C. & T.C. book in the span of two years. But  he  raised  the ground  without  specifying the reason  after the receipt  of  notice  from the appellant to pay  the taxes in the year  2004.  It is  known to every owner of the vehicle that the vehicle  has to be used  with  R.C. and T.C.  Book and payment of taxes.  Therefore the complaint  was itself barred by  limitation against  the appellant still  the learned Forum considered  it.  

13.    The appellant further  submitted that  it cannot be  called  as  service provider for the  respondent  No. 1 as  it performs  the sovereign  duty  of  registration  and  tax collection of the vehicle and has not taken  any consideration for the  work. Therefore  no order can be passed against it. However, the learned Forum has passed an erroneous order which  needs to be set aside.

14.    The  respondent No. 1 submitted that  the notices were properly  served by the learned Forum which has passed  the correct order. Hence,  the order needs to be confirmed.

15.    The respondent No. 2 submitted that  the complaint is regarding  providing  of  papers to the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 being  the manufacturer  of the vehicle was not concerned with  its registration.  The learned Forum rightly considered it and  passed the order which therefore does not need  to be set aside.

16.    We considered the contentions and perused  the   evidence. We find  no evidence  submitted by  the appellant  justifying  non  receipt  of  notice  from the Forum so that  the appellant  could not remain present . However,  we do  find that  the appellant  is a  government  department  entrusted  with  the responsibility  of  registration of the vehicle and  collection of taxes which is a sovereign duty and  cannot be called  a service provider after taking  consideration of service.  How the respondent No. 1 got the  registration  and  kept  silent  without  R.C. and T.C. Book is the  matter of  enquiry by the appellant  which is independent  of  Forum jurisdiction. Hence it is not possible  to pass any order  against  the appellant  as service provider under  the  Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.  Hence, the  Forum  erred  in holding  the  appellant to be service provider and to have passed the order against  it.  Therefore, the order passed by the learned Forum deserves to be set aside as regards  and  as it pertains  to  appellant.

17.    We therefore, find that  this ground  is sufficient   to set aside the order of the learned Forum as regards the appellant . Hence,  the order below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal is allowed.

ii.       The order of the learned Forum is set aside so far as  it pertains  to appellant  which was O.P. No. 3 before the  learned Forum.

iii.      Rest of the order  stands  as it is.

iv.      Parties to bear their own cost.

v.       Copy of  the order  be provided to  both the parties , free of cost.