DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, MANSA Vs. AMITA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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., 2004 AIR(SC) 4393 and drew our attention to the following portion of the judgment:-

(3.) 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.