Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2909

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
Pragati Birendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Commissioner – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/448/2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Mandlekar
For the Respondents: Girish Dubey

Statutory bodies providing services for consideration and not solely performing sovereign, judicial, or tax-related functions fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Such bodies are accountable for deficiencies in service when failing to fulfill obligations for which a fee is charged.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(d), 2(o), 12 and 15 - Deficiency in service - Jurisdiction of consumer fora - Statutory bodies performing sovereign functions - Whether statutory bodies providing services for consideration are amenable to consume jurisdiction - Held, yes - Welfare activities through economic adventures are covered under jurisdiction of consumer forums - Mere performance of statutory duty does not provide immunity if service is rendered for consideration. (Paras 20, 21, 36, 40)

(B) Appeals - Scope and ambit - Co-ordinate benches should maintain judicial consistency - If a prior decision on a similar issue has been determined in favour of consumers, a subsequent departure without reference to a larger bench is improper. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
The complainant applied for the issuance of a duplicate driving license in smart card format, paying the requisite fees. The service was not delivered within the stipulated time frame prescribed in the citizens' charter. The complaint regarding deficiency in service was initially dismissed by the forum on the grounds that the authority is a statutory body performing sovereign functions and thus not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act.

Findings of Court:
The commission found that the performance of the service of issuing smart cards for a specific consideration, which serves as a quid pro quo, removes it from the realm of pure sovereign immunity. It held that the respondent failed to provide the service within the time limit mandated by its own internal policies, constituting a deficiency in service.

Issues: The main issues were whether a statutory body performing administrative tasks for a fee qualifies as a 'service provider' under the Act, and whether such bodies are exempt from consumer jurisdiction on the grounds of performing sovereign functions.

Ratio Decidendi: The nature of the function performed, specifically whether it involves a service for consideration as opposed to purely sovereign or judicial duties, determines the applicability of the Act. Statutory bodies conducting commercial activities or providing facilities for a fee are accountable for deficiency in service.

Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation awarded for deficiency in service and harassment, with litigation costs.

Table of Content
1. district forum dismissed complaint for lack of consumer-provider relationship. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. rto delays in service and forced sales constitute potential consumer grievances. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. statutory bodies are amenable to consumer act when rendering commercial services. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. sovereign functions are exempt, but commercial services remain under consumer jurisdiction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
5. statutory bodies providing licensed products for fees are liable for deficiency. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

ORDER

(Delivered on 30/03/2026)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Original Complainant namely Ku. Pragati D/o. Birendra Mishra, Nagpur against the Order and Judgement dtd. 25/07/2014 in Complaint No. CC/228/2012 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 24/08/2011 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 compla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2909

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONKalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, MemberPragati Birendra Mishra – AppellantVersusRegional Transport Commissioner – RespondentFIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/448/2014

Statutory bodies providing services for consideration and not solely performing sovereign, judicial, or tax-related functions fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Such bodies are accountable for deficiencies in service when failing to fulfill obligations for which a fee is charged.

Cases Referred (2)

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Kalyani Kapse, Presiding Member, Shaila D. Wandhare, Member
Pragati Birendra Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Commissioner – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/448/2014