JAGADISH PRASAD JAIN vs R.T.A. KALAHANDI

REGISTERED notice having been issued to both parties, the respondent has entered appearance but the appellant has not appeared. Notice having been sent by registered post on the address supplied by the appellant himself, the presumption is that notice reached him but he did not appear. Even then we examined the records of this case in order to find out whether it is worth waiting for the appearance of the appellant for disposing of the case on merits. We find that on his own admission the complainant is not a consumer and the dispute presented before the District Forum was not a consumer dispute.

THE facts leading to the filing of the Consumer Case No. 83 of 1994 before the District Forum, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna may be shortly stated as follows: THE complainant is the owner of a tractor bearing Registration No. M.P.-23G-1051. He had paid all the taxes for the vehicle and sent the original documents to Bhubaneswar on 10.3.1994. On demand by the Vehicle Checking Officer on 1.3.1994, he produced the xerox copies of the documents before him. Again on 7.3.1994, his vehicle was seized and was detained till 10.3.1994 for want of the original documents. He has alleged that one N.K. Jain the son of the petitioner out of shock became so much panic that he was mentally deranged and turned to be an insane. It has also been alleged that due to the seizure of the vehicle, the marriage negotiation of the daughter of the complainant could not materialise for which the complainant underwent humiliation and mental agony. He approached the District Forum for adequate compensation. THE opposite parties filed a show cause denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. It was asserted that law demands that all the requisite papers of the vehicle must be in the vehicle itself while plying on the road and should be produced before the Competent Authority on demand. THE vehicle was checked on 1.3.1994 by the Vehicle Checking Officer while it was plying from Gopinathpur to Bhawanipatna with ten passengers. On demand the driver failed to produce the original Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate and Driving Licence and other particulars about the payment of taxes. Subsequently the vehicle was again checked on 7.3.1994 while plying from Bhawanipatna to Titilagarh with four passengers and the aforesaid documents could not be produced by the driver. It is, therefore, asserted that the complainant committed an offence according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 and is also liable to be prosecuted there under as well as under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. THE plea of the complainant that he produced the xerox copies of the necessary documents was specifically denied. We are not going into the other details of the case of both parties as discussed by the District Forum for the reason that the demand of necessary documents by the Vehicle Checking Officer was a statutory function provided under law and non-production thereof authorised the officers concerned to seize the vehicle and proceed against the owner/driver of the vehicle for violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. The complainant is otherwise not a consumer as he has not hired or availed of any service of the opposite parties for consideration. There is no element of service involved in this case and therefore, the dispute presented before the District Forum was not a consumer dispute and has been rightly dismissed by the Forum. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.