The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation for harassment by public authorities and the need for exemplary damages in cases of arbitrary or capricious behavior by public functionaries.

Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—This is a case of harassment by the public functionary. The complainant Harmit Singh purchased a second hand car at Delhi and had applied to the registering authority at Chandigarh Administration along with relevant papers, original RC, no objection from the Competent Authority and also other papers duly signed by the previous owner on 25.4.1995 for issuing registration certificate in his favour. The said RC book was ultimately given on 3.6.2003 and for the abnormal delay in discharge of duties the District Forum awarded compensation which was increased by the State Commission in appeal to Rs. 15,000.

Case of the complainant:

2. Complainant purchased a second hand Ambassador car for Rs. one lakh and applied to the Registering Authority, etc., for transfer of ownership along with all relevant documents on 25.4.1995. He was given a slip for the receipt of the documents. Despite repeated visits to the office of the Registering Authority, the RC book was not given and ultimately in 2001 he was informed that the file concerning his case was not traceable. Thereafter, he served a legal notice on the opposite parties on 23.10.2001 which evoked no response. The complainant alleges that in the absence of the RC book, the car has become junk due to non-use and he was not in a position to sell the same. He has sought relief to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000. During the pendency of the complaint in the District Forum he was asked to submit the documents. He complied with the orders and ultimately a duplicate RC was delivered to the complainant on 3.6.2003. The District Forum held that abnormal delay constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly it directed to pay Rs. 2,000 as lumpsum compensation to the complainant and also awarded Rs. 500 in addition as litigation cost. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum the complainant as well as the opposite parties filed cross-appeals which were heard together by the State Commission. The State Commission held that—

“during this long period his mental trauma though not quantifiable, is quite easy to imagine. Keeping in view the entirety of facts of the case, we are of the firm view that the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and this portion of the impugned order needs modification. Therefore, the Appeal No. 324 of 2004 is dismissed as it lacks merit. Consequently, the impugned order is amended to the extent that OP No. 2 shall pay a lumpsum Rs. 15,000 to the complainant in addition to payment of Rs. 500 as costs of litigation.”

3. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission Shri Harmit Singh has filed this revision. He has pleaded that considering unjustifiable delay in grant of the RC and also continuous deficiency of service, mental agony, harassment, etc. and interest on the claim the respondent may be directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,25,000 in addition to the cost of litigation.

Submissions of the complainant:

4. Complainant appeared in person. He produced the acknowledgement slip issued by the Registering Authority (MV), UT, Chandigarh which mentions the number of the car and the same was extended from time-to-time. According to him, the acknowledgement slip issued by the Registering Authority (MV), UT, Chandigarh did not mention the chassis number/ engine number, name of the buyer and name of the seller, etc. which are required by the insurance authority. Similarly, with this slip he cannot sell his vehicle. He produced a copy of the duplicate certificate of the registration. The vehicle could not be plied on the road due to absence of registration papers till 2003. Furthermore the car is reduced to a junk. Thirdly, in the absence of RC the car could not be sold.

Submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent:

5. The main argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent ( Mr. Verma ) is that the complainant is not a consumer and Registering Authority is exercising sovereign functions. He ad