PRAVAT KUMAR SAHOO Vs. COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -the complainant, the owner of a bus bearing Registration No. ORY -1100, has filed this application u/sec.17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') praying for a compensation of Rs.3,32,345/- the details of which has been worked out in the Schedule of claim alleging deficiency in service while it was in police custody.

(2.) The claimant's bus was seized on 22.9.1990 for non-payment of road tax at O. M. P. Square, Cuttack and was taken to the Chowdwar Police Station where it was kept under the custody of the Officer-in-charge of the Chowdwar Police Station, The vehicle checking report which was issued while seizing the vehicle has been annexed to the application as Annexure-A. The petitioner prayed for its release and having failed he approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for a direction to release the vehicle. The Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 8.9.1990 directed the release of the vehicle on certain terms which among other things required the complainant to deposit certain amount. The complainant has stated that due to his stringent financial condition he could not comply with the direction of the Court and moved the Court for relaxation. On 12.8.92 the Court considering the financial condition of the complainant reviewed its own order and directed to release the vehicle on depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- by 3rd of February, 1992 by the complainant. Pursuant to the said order opposite parties 1 and 2, namely, the Commissioner of Transport representing the Flying Squad and the Additional Commissioner (Enforcement), State Transport Authority, Orissa issued a letter to the Police Station for release of the vehicle. The petitioner on reaching the Police Station found that various parts and accessories were missing from the seised vehicle. He, therefore, did not receive the vehicle with that condition and approached opposite parties 1 and 2 to get the vehicle thoroughly checked before its delivery to the complainant There after he got the vehicle released on 2.5.1992 and the repairing garage to which the claimant took the vehicle estimated the fittings and repairs at a cost of about Rs.1,42,345/-. He has annexed the checking report and the estimate as Annexure E and F respectively. He has claimed a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- (one lakh five thousand) as financial loss during the aforesaid period as the claimant had purchased the vehicle taking a loan, from the Orissa State Financial Corporation. The dues of Rs.65,000/- payable to the Corporation has also been claimed by the claimant and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- has been claimed for loss of goodwill.

(3.) In the show-cause filed by opp. parties 1 and 2 all the allegations made by the claimant have been denied besides disputing the jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain the dispute. It has been alleged in the show-cause that the claimant is not a consumer vis-a-vis these opposite parties and there has been no deficiency of service. It has been further stated in the show-cause that the claimant's vehicle was seized by the authorised authority on 22.8.1990 and was kept in the custody of opposite party No.3 for non-payment of arrears of tax amounting to Rs.1,40,403/- out of which Rs.55,000/- was admitted to be in arrears by the claimant himself. For the delay in getting the vehicle released it was the claimant was solely responsible as he did not comply with the direction of the High Court which was condition precedent for release of the vehicle. It has also been indicated that opposite party No.3 was also not responsible for any Joss of parts and accessories, if any, as it was also the duty of the claimant to guard the vehicle. At any rate, the stand of these opposite parties has been that the claimant is not a consumer as defined in the Act for which reason this proceeding is not maintainable.