Hon'ble Sir, Kindly check points of appeal
Appeal against the decision of Consumer Disptues Rederessal Forum, Kapruthala.
Points:
Appeal is filed to call for the records on the file of the learned President and Learned members of the Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Kapurthala. The learned President and members set aside the complaint made whereas the complainant has submitted all the evidences alongwith the rules of the Department of Transport, Punjab alongwith Affidavits to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala. Though during arguments it was admitted by the opposite party and the President and the members that the opposite parties are on fault for not following the rules framed by the Department.
I submit as under:
1. The learned President and members have not considered the documents and the Affidavits submitted and taken decision by setting aside the fundamental rights of the complainant guaranteed under the Constitution for which the complainant filed complaint in Public interest.
2. Challenge in this appeal is made as per the order dated ___________ passed by the learned President and members of consumer disputes redressal forum, Kapurthala declining to consider not even a single point of the complainant while deciding the matter.
3. That the complainant got harassed to attend the hearings for more than ten times. No one by the side of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 appeared before the forum. Even Opposite party No. 1 could not provide the reply as Affidavit despite repeated adjournments. Though the matter has been proved that the Opposite parties were at fault even then the decision has been made in the favour of opposite parties.
4. Learned President and members failed to provide the details on which ground the decision has been taken. Lakhs of rupees of the public has been duped by the Department illegally but the Learned President and the members failed to consider the pleadings of the complainant.
5. That on the last date of hearing the representative of the opposite party said to the Learned President and members that though it is proved that we have no evidence in support of charging the fees of Rs 450/- so please decide slightly in favour of us.
6. Learned President and the members exercised their rights of decision by keeping the documentary evidences on the nook and corner offending Article 20(3) as well as Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Before adverting to the factual matrix of the matter, the President and members nipped the rights of the complainant and deprived of to him to exercise his fundamental rights of justice.
8. Under law the complainant can not be deprived of from his fundamental rights of justice conferred by Article 21, so I challenge the decision of the Learned President and members.
9. That the decision has been made not considering the documentary evidences. How the Central Government' policies can be considered than Department of Transport Punjab's policies for the case belong to Punjab State.
10. Though the opposite parties have been spared to defend The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. The question is that the RIGHT OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED AND THE DECISION MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RIGHTS OF COMPLAINANT IN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. THE ACT CAME IN TO FORMATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONSUMERS PROTECTION, BUT THE BIASED DECISION HAS BEEN MADE.
11. That the opportunity of hearing provided to the complainant. The complainant submitted all the evidences and the opposite parties were proved at fault then IS IT FAIRNESS IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL WITHOUT ANY SOLID REASONS.
12. Kindly the matter be decided after going through the records and after affording opportunity to the complainant, the President and members are duty bound to record the reasons of doing so while disposing of the appeal.
13. That in place of providing justice to the complainant the frustration had been made.
14. That though not providing any material evidence on record the matter has been decided in favour of the opposite parties. So, the appeal before the State Consumer disputes redressal commisson is being made for justice.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Rajneesh Madhok
B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar,
St. No. 2, Railway Road,
Phagwara-144401 (Pb)
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "rajneesh madhok" <rajneesh_madhok@...> wrote:
>
> People had to face lot of inconvenience because the justice could not be made at any level. You keep on proving with evidences and rules but the decision will be made not keeping in consideration the documentary evidences but with the whim and fancies of the judge. People keep on attending the hearings, keep on waiting for their call for hearing, and spend a lot of time, energy and money on hearings and submitting evidences. Though all the rules with evidences show that the opposite parties are at fault even then the decision is in favour of those persons. It will take very long time to tackle the corrupt machinery. I pray to God that the public kindly be free from the clutches of corrupt machinery.
> --- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Abhimanyu <who.will.file.rti@> wrote:
> >
> > time will come when people will hang the corrupt people without waiting for
> > court orders because *court of justice* has become *market of justice*.
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:48 PM, rajneesh madhok
> > <rajneesh_madhok@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAPURTHALA
> > >
> > > Complaint No. 53 of 2011
> > >
> > > Date of Instt. 20.4.2011
> > >
> > > Date of Decision: 14.9.2011
> > >
> > > Rajneesh Madhok, B-xxx/63, Nehru Nagar, St. No. 2, Railway Road,
> > > Phagwara-144401
> > > (Pb)----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Complainant
> > >
> > > Versus
> > >
> > > 1. Sub Divisional Magistrate-Cum-Licensing Authority-Cum-Overall
> > > incharge of Suwidha Centre, Phagwara
> > > 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-overall incharge of Suwidha Centres in
> > > District, D.C. Office, Kapurthala.
> > > 3. The State Transport Commissioner (STC) O/o The State Transport
> > > Commissioner, Chandigarh.---------------------------------- Opposite
> > > Parties.
> > >
> > > COMPLAINAT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
> > >
> > > Before: Shri Surinder Mohan President)
> > >
> > > Sh. Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)
> > >
> > > Smt. Shashi Narang (Member)
> > >
> > > Present: Complainant in person,
> > >
> > > Shri Harjit Singh administrative officer for opposite
> > > parties.
> > >
> > > ORDER
> > >
> > > *Parkash Singh Lamme (Member)*
> > >
> > > 1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant applied for
> > > renewal of the driving licence to the SDM –Cum-Licensing Authority,
> > > Phagwara on 7/11/10 and sought information under Section 4 of RTI Act under
> > > Proactive Disclosure about the fee to be submitted with the application. As
> > > per prescribed norms of the opposite party department, complainant
> > > deposited fee of Rs 30/- with opposite party No. 1 but the concerned
> > > official of opposite party No. 1 refused to accept the same and demanded Rs
> > > 450/- as fee for renewal instead of prescribed fee of Rs 30/-. That
> > > accordingly complainant deposited Rs 450/= vide cash receipt on 8/10/2010.
> > > That opposite parties have charged over and above the prescribed fee
> > > regarding which no reason whatsoever has been given by the opposite
> > > parties till date. Thus the opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade
> > > practice against which the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
> > > Complaint is supported by an affidavit of complainant.
> > >
> > > 2. In reply it is pleaded that complainant
> > > applied for renewal of his driving licence in Form No. 7 and the other
> > > documents were completed by the concerned operator of Suwidha Centre. The
> > > complainant never requested the opposite parties to accept the fee of Rs
> > > 30/- required as per the norms prescribed by the department. In fact
> > > license of complainant was late for more than one year and he was to be
> > > charged the penalty for late submission of his driving license. In this
> > > manner fee was charged from the complainant as per Govt. law, rules and
> > > instructions. It is further pleaded that opposite parties are bound to
> > > charge the fee as prescribed by the Govt. from time to time which is being
> > > charged as per Govt. instructions. Hence there is no deficiency in service
> > > or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and opposite
> > > parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
> > >
> > > 3. In order to prove his case Ex. CA affidavit of
> > > complainat, Ex C1 application dated 9/11/10, ex C2 Copy of Form 7 dated
> > > 9/11/10, Ex. C3 snapshot of website for the fee. Ex C4 memo No. 322 dated
> > > 11/2/11, Ex. C5 grounds of appeal.
> > >
> > > 4. To rebut this evidence Ex. R1 Copy of rule 32 of
> > > Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and Ex. R2 affidavit of Chaman Lal Sharma
> > > Clerk.
> > >
> > > 5. We have heard arguments of both the parties and
> > > perused the file very carefully,
> > >
> > > 6. The complainant argued that he has applied for
> > > renewal of driving licence to the SDM-cum-Licensing Authority, Phagwara on
> > > 7/11/10 in the Form 7 and the SDM-Cum-Licensing Authority directed him to
> > > deposit Rs 30/= in Suwidha Centre. At the Suwidha Centre, Mr. Ajay had
> > > thrown out application of the complainant and refused to accept the
> > > application. The concerned official demanded Rs 450/- as fee for renewal
> > > and complainant deposited the same and got the receipt of Rs 450/- whereas
> > > the prescribed fee of the department of Transport is Rs 30/-. The
> > > complainant approached the Deputy Commissioner who is overall incahrge of
> > > Suwidha Centre to supply copy of circular issued by the Department of
> > > Transport regarding the fee of Rs 450/- but he did not produce any circular
> > > in this regard. The charging of exorbitant rate of fee at the rate of 450/-
> > > in place of Rs 30/- is exploitation of consumer and unfair trade practice
> > > by the opposite parties.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Representatives of opposite parties argued that the fee for
> > >
> > > The renewal of driving license has been taken from the
> > > complainant as per the law, rule and instructions issued by the Govt. There
> > > was no deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties to the
> > > complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Suwidha
> > > Centres providing services to the general public, the fee taken from them
> > > were charged as per the government instructions and rules. Rs 450/- have
> > > been charged where the work is computerized and laminated as per the
> > > government instructions and rules for renewal of driving license. The
> > > detail of the fee collected by Suwidha Centre is as under:
> > >
> > > i) Renewal of driving license fee Rs 250/-
> > >
> > > ii) Late fee for 1 year Rs 150/-
> > >
> > > iii) Late fee for subsequent year Rs 50/-
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > Total Rs
> > > 450/-
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is admitted that at some places where driving license are
> > > renewed manually, the fee of Rs 30/- is charged. The opposite parties
> > > argued that no extra fee is charged from the general public except the fee
> > > prescribed for each work as per instructions and rules issued by the
> > > government. The complainant has suppressed the fact that his license was
> > > submitted late for a period of more than one year and the penalty is to be
> > > charged as prescribed under the rules i.e. Rs 150/- for the 1st year and
> > > thereafter Rs 50/- for each subsequent year. Suwidha Centre charged Rs
> > > 450/- as per the instructions of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The
> > > claim of the complainant is unjust and illegal.
> > >
> > > We have considered submissions of both the parties. We
> > > are of the opinion that fee charged from the complainant by Suwidha Centre
> > > is just and according to the government instructions and rules if renewed
> > > license is issued vide Smart Card. The work of renewal of driving license
> > > is involved by the computers in Form No. 7. Suwidha Centre has issued
> > > receipt No. B 64070168 dated 8/12/10 which was given to the complainant
> > > with the remarks that complainant may collect driving license after ten
> > > days from the delivery counter No. 1. The fee collected by Suwidha Centre
> > > from the complainant is as per the instructions issued by the Punjab Govt.
> > > for the renewal of driving license. The complainant has not attached the
> > > copy of Driving License with his complaint issued by the opposite party.
> > > Under Form No. 7 the opposite party has issued the Driving License to the
> > > complainant after considering his application under From No. 7 Rule 32
> > > since No 8A as per Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. The opposite party has
> > > rightly charged the fee and issued the Driving License to the complainant.
> > > Keeping in view of the above, we reject the complaint of the complainant.
> > >
> > > Copies of order to be sent to the parties free of cost under
> > > the rules and file be consigned to record room.
> > >
> > > Announced Sd/- Sd/-
> > > Sd/-
> > >
> > > 14.9.2011 Member Member
> > > President
> > > POINTS OF CONSIDERATION
> > >
> > > 1. *http://punjabtransport.nic.in/html/licence.htm It is specifically
> > > mentioned in the website and the details provided alongwith exhibits that
> > > the Fees Rs 30/- is being paid because the Form No. 6 is not available on
> > > the website and in the market as well. If we consider the fees details as
> > > per website Rs 200/- should be charged for Renewal Fee as per attached
> > > website details. *
> > > 2. *There is no provision of Late fee charges according to the
> > > Website. So whether the decision could be made when on so many
> > > representations no document as evidence could be provided by the opposite
> > > parties. *
> > > 3. *If we consider that in Punjab The Central Motor vehicle Act is
> > > applicable then the rules framed by the Central Govt is that Rs 250/- can
> > > be collected with the cost of Smart card. The cost of computerized chip is
> > > Rs Two hundred rupees. The Smart card is like the ATM Card with unique
> > > features. The Licence provided to the consumer was on a simple paper. Till
> > > the last day of argument it was proved and admitted by the President and
> > > members that the exorbitant Fees has been charged*
> > > 4. *In central Vehicle rules the late fees of Rs 50/- can be charged
> > > on the annual basis but there is no provision in Punjab Govt or Central
> > > Govt Transport department rules that the fees can be charged @ Rs 150/- for
> > > first year. How the decision was made without considering the evidences
> > > submitted. *
> > > 5. *Under Department of Transport Punjab's rules Rs 250/- can not be
> > > charged. *
> > > 6. *No circular no guidelines submitted by the opposite parties even
> > > then the decision is in favour of OP. YEH HAI INDIA. I LOVE MY INDIA.
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment