DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, MANSA vs AMITA GOYAL

Petitioner, District Transport Officer, Mansa has filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 16.3.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ''the State Commission''). In short, the case is that respondent purchased one truck Make Tata Model 1996, bearing Registration No.HR-57-1276, Engine No.697D23-ETQ22774 and Chasis No.360324- ETQ113274 from M/s. Ganesh Rice Mills, Industrial Area, Sirsa and obtained No Objection Certificate from District Transport Officer, Sirsa. The Respondent applied for registration in her name at DTO, Mansa, Punjab and completed all the formalities, paid the due taxes and fees and got the registration certificate issued in respondent''s name with new no.PB-31E-5851 on 19.12.2006. Since then, the respondent has been regularly depositing the due taxes. In connection with an FIR dated 23.05.2009 involving the respondent''s vehicle PB-31E-5851, the respondent approached the DTO Mansa for verifying ownership/registration of the vehicle. It was informed by the DTO, Mansa that against this no.PB-31E-5851 a Sonalika Tractors is registered in the name of a person resident of Dabwali. The respondent then approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mansa, (in short ''the District Forum'') and filed a complaint. The District Forum, vide its order dated 07.07.2010 dismissed the complaint observing that the case involved complicated questions of law and facts and detailed evidence was required to be led before reaching at a final conclusion, and therefore, this matter was required to be decided in a Civil Court and not in summary fashion by the District Forum.

Against this order of the District Forum, the respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide its order dated 16.3.2012 allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum with direction to the DTO Mansa to make necessary entries in its records regarding the registration of the said vehicle and to issue the registration certificate as per the rules and regulations of the Department. Against this order of the State Commission, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records carefully. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the District Forum had rightly decided the case even when the Petitioner was proceeded ex-parte. Learned District Forum has clearly found that the complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts and detailed evidence is required to be led before reaching at a final conclusion, therefore, this matter is required to be decided in a Civil Court and not in summary fashion by this Forum. The State Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint as DTO has been directed to make necessary entries in its record regarding the registration of the said vehicle and to issue the registration certificate as per the rules and regulations. Learned counsel has argued that first of all, the respondent is not a consumer as there is no consideration which is required under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The taxes and fees paid in the treasury are in the nature of government taxes only as required by law and they are not in the form of any consideration agreed between the parties. The respondent is not covered under the definition of the consumer and hence the State Commission''s order is liable to be set aside on this count only. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal and Ors. Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 4393 and drew our attention to the following portion of the judgment:- "The statement of law made in Shirur Mutt case, AIR 1954 SC 282, regarding the attributes of fee has undergone a sea change. The consistent view now is that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee which are both compulsory exaction of money by public authorities. The correlationship between the levy (fee) and the services rendered should be one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. Further, the broad and general correlationship between the totality of the fee on the one hand and the totality of the expenses of the services on the other, will be sufficient to justify the levy. The levy will not fail only on the ground that the measure of its distribution on the persons or incidence is disproportionate to the actual services rendered by them. The true test being the comprehensive level of the value of the totality of the services set off against the totality of the receipts. The character of the fee is thus established. The vagaries in its distribution amongst the class do not detract from the concept of a fee as such."

Learned counsel for the petitioner also mentioned that the original records were deposited in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa and they could not be submitted to the Statement Commission. The State Commission has ordered to make necessary entries in the records without seeing the original records. Registration of the vehicle can only be made as per the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Registration No.PB-31E-5851 cannot be re-entered in the records as this number is already entered as registration number of a Tractor. Thus, the order of the State Commission is against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and rules and is not capable of being implemented. Learned counsel also pointed out that the petitioner is representing a Department of the State

Government and cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) has been imposed by the State Commission, which is very high and arbitrary. When the vehicle of the respondent is not registered with DTO Mansa, how can he be liable to pay any compensation or cost.

Learned counsel for the respondent claimed that all the formalities were completed as per the advice of DTO Mansa for registering the vehicle and after depositing the due taxes and fees, registration certificate was also issued by the DTO Mansa bearing the seal of the DTO Mansa. DTO, Mansa has not lodged any complaint that the said registration certificate is forged and has not been issued by their office. In fact, lot of irregularities were going on in DTO, Mansa''s office as was evident from the inquiry made by the SDM and based on that inquiry a FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been registered. The respondent has been depositing the due taxes regularly and it was never pointed out by the DTO, Mansa that the taxes were being deposited for a vehicle which did not exist. Learned counsel also pointed out that when the application for registration was made the respondent also deposited the tax and fees as per the following details:- Rs.1190/- on 5.9.2006 through TR-141

Rs.1000 through TR-431692 on 13.12.2006

Rs.850/- through TR-431696 on 13.12.2006 and

Rs.60/- through TR-433530 on 19.12.2006

Learned counsel also pleaded that fees deposited related to a particular service and in this case it was for the registration of the vehicle. Hence, even if the road tax is left out, the fee was deposited for purposes of registration only, which will amount to consideration and accordingly respondent would be deemed to be a consumer. Accordingly, the State Commission''s order is perfectly justified and no interference is needed by this Commission.

We have carefully examined the records and analysed the arguments advanced by both the learned counsels. According to the complaint lodged by the respondent, it is clearly stated that she deposited taxes and fees for the registration of the said vehicle. The portion of the judgment quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case - State of Himachal and Ors. Vs. Shivalik Agro Poly Products and Ors. (supra) clearly observes that The correlationship between the levy (fee) and the services rendered should be one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude . This does not negate the general understanding that a fee is generally levied for a particular service. It means that if the fee is being charged for a particular purpose, or service, the service must be provided. From this angle, the fee charged is in the nature of consideration for a particular service to be provided to the depositor of the fee and in this respect he becomes a consumer. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondent was a consumer so far as the registration of the vehicle was concerned. But we have to analyse the impact of being consumer in the circumstances of the present case. Complainant''s case is that after completing all the formalities, registration certificate with no.PB-31E-5851 was issued to the complainant. After an FIR was lodged against this vehicle in the year 2009, the respondent applied to DTO Mansa to verify the ownership/registration of the vehicle. The purpose of filing an application before DTO Mansa for verifying the ownership/registration of the vehicle is not clear because the registration certification itself is the proof of ownership of the vehicle. As lot of bungling was also going on in DTO Mansa''s office, it may not be ruled out that the registration certificate of no.PB-31E-5851

could have been issued with connivance of some unscrupulous elements operating in the office of DTO Mansa. But this is a matter of inquiry. For the claim, we have to look into two scenariosone that the Registration Certificate for no.PB-31E-5851 issued to the complainant was a genuine document rightfully issued by the DTO Mansa and second, the Registration Certificate issued was not genuinely issued from the DTO Mansa and was a forged one.

In first scenario if the Registration Certificate was genuine and was issued by the DTO Mana, then the contract was completed in December, 2006 when the Registration Certificate was issued and clearly there seems to be no deficiency in service. Moreover, when the Registration Certificate was issued, any deficiency in service could have been raised within two years as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was lodged before the District Forum on 20.5.2010 and clearly it would be time barred and no relief could be granted to the complainant. If we take the Registration Certificate as genuine, then it would be inferred that by some illegal, fraudulent and mischievous act, somebody has manipulated record to enter another vehicle against this no. PB-31E-5851, which will necessitate the administrative enquiry and criminal investigation and remedy for relief would lie with the civil court.

If we take the second scenario that the Registration Certificate was not issued by the DTO Mansa and it was forged, then the DTO Mansa was not a party in this contract and hence issue of deficiency in service could not be raised in this scenario.

We find force in the argument of the petitioner that the order of the State Commission to make necessary entries in its record regarding the registration of the vehicle is not implementable as there is already another vehicle (Tractor) registered against this registration number. Registration has to be made as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Rules made thereunder and only one vehicle can be registered against a particular number. The fact is that the present case definitely involves issues relating to forgery, fraud and cheating etc., and dealing under the Consumer Protection Act may not be the right approach. The matter may require adjudication by the Civil Court or a Criminal Court or by both.

The order of the State Commission suffers from infirmity that it is not implementable under the law of the land. Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission dated 16.3.2012 is set aside. Respondent would be at liberty to file fresh registration application for the said vehicle before DTO Mansa, within a period of fifteen days which will be considered by DTO, Mansa in accordance with rules and regulations and will be decided within a period of one month from the date of filing of the application. DTO Mansa will regularise the period from 2006 till the current date under rules without any penal action. This will be without any prejudice to the right of the Respondent to move to the Civil Court or Criminal Court or both, if she so wishes.

It is surprising that DTO, Mansa allowed the plying of vehicle with illegal registration (as per DTO Mansa) for so many years. DTO Mansa also did not object to depositing the tax for a vehicle which was not registered as per their record. All this led to a prolonged litigation. DTO Mansa is therefore directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty Five thousands only) as cost of litigation within a period of one month from the date of this order.