Statutory authorities performing functions for consideration are not immune to consumer jurisdiction. If a function is not a core sovereign act, it constitutes a service, and its non-performance or delay amounts to deficiency in service under the consumer law.

ORDER

(Delivered on 30/03/2026)

Per Mrs Kalyani Kapse, Hon’ble Presiding Member

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Original Complainant namely Ku. Snehlata D/o. Shankar Luley, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd. 25/07/2014 in Complaint No. CC/650/2011 passed by learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur (Hereinafter referred as “The Forum”) under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (for the sake of brevity “The Act”)

2. The learned Forum, Nagpur dismissed the complaint filed under section 12 of the Act and hence this appeal. The brief facts of the appeal mentioned herein below. (Parties are hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature i.e. the present Appellant as Complainant and present Respondents, Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur, Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and United Telecom Ltd., Nagpur as Opposite Parties for the better appreciation.)

3. In a nutshell it is a case of the Complainant that the Complainant /appellant made an application for the purpose of grant of duplicate driving license under Rule 11 (1) of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by making an application to the Respondent no 1 on 22/08/2011 by making the payment of requisite fees. The Respondent no. 1 was required to give duplicate driving license to appellant within 4 days of the application being the Regional Transport Officer. But it is found and observed that respondent did not give driving license in smart card type format till 30 days and therefore the appellant who is the original complainant filed the consumer complaint before the District Consumer Redressal Forum Nagpur on 20/10/2011 for "deficiency in service" and "unfair practice" on the part of respondents.

4. Notices were served to Opponents. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 collectively filed Written Version/ Reply and by general denials and defences restricted the claim of the Complainant and thereby denied all the allegations made by Complainant against the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2. The O.P. No.1 and 2 submitted in its preliminary objection that the Learned District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as Complainants are not the consumers as per the provision of consumer protection act, 1986, as well as there is no relation of consumer and service provider.

5. The Opponents No.1 and 2 specifically submitted that it is the administrative work of State to issue license to the persons who drives vehicle and for the same they accept license fee. The administrative work of Opponent No.1 and 2 is as per the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and if there is any grievance against the officials of Opponent No.1 and 2 then there is tribunal or authorities particularly prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore, the said District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. OP. No.3 had not filed reply.

6. The learned District Commission, thereafter recorded the evidence led by the Complainant as well as Opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The learned Commission, also went through the documents filed by both the parties as well as written notes of arguments. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence as well as the authorities cited the leamed Commission has dismissed the Complaint. Apart from that complaint there are other four complaints were pending before the Learned Di