Purushottam S/O Balkisan Kachhi vs Regional Transport Commissioner

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The appellant applied on 22/08/2011 for a duplicate driving licence in smart card format to the Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur, paying the requisite fees. The Regional Transport Officer was required under Rule 11(1) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to issue the duplicate driving licence within four days, but failed to do so for over thirty days, prompting the appellant to file a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur on 20/10/2011 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint by order dated 25/07/2014, holding that the complainant was not a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as the issuance of a driving licence was a statutory/administrative function of the State governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, for which separate remedies were prescribed. Five similar complaints were disposed of jointly.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur, on appeal, found that the impugned order suffered from infirmity and illegality warranting interference, and accordingly allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the District Forum.

Catchwords: duplicate driving licence smart card deficiency in service unfair trade practice consumer Regional Transport Officer jurisdiction Consumer Protection Act Motor Vehicles Act Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules