| 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
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
|
No comments:
Post a Comment