Harsh Aggarwal & Another vs Commissioner Of Police & Another
2008 Latest Caselaw 1188 Del

*                     HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           WP(C) No.14421-22/2006

                HARSH AGGARWAL & ANOTHER           ..... Petitioners
                         Through Mr.V.K.Tandon, Advocate

                                     Versus

               COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents

Through Ms.Jyoti Singh with Mr.Aditya Chhibber, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

%                              JUDGMENT
                              30.07.2008

1. The petitioners by the present petition are seeking a mandamus

directing the respondents to formulate a policy ensuring that

autorickshaws plying on the roads of Delhi, which are governed by

the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, follow the statutory rules, do not

overcharge, do not refuse to go by the meter and misbehave with the

commuters, as the present complaint redressal system has proved

ineffective. The petitioners have alleged that the public suffer on

account of the tendency of the autorickshaw drivers like refusal to go

by meter, overcharging, refusal to go to a destination, more

particularly short destinations, fast/faulty and tampered fare meters

etc. It is alleged that the petitioners themselves on a couple of

occasions lodged complaints with the respondents' help line

No.42400400 but never had any response from the respondents as to

what action was taken on their complaints. It is further alleged that

from the information received under RTI, it could be seen that 2869

complaints were received by respondent No.1 during the period

February, 2006 to July, 2006 and out of the said 2869 complaints,

notices were issued to 2754 owners/permit holders but only 956

notices could be served and the rest 1798 notices could not even be

served because of incomplete address of the autorickshaw

owners/permit holders. It is alleged that there is no proper

check/system or mechanism of verifying the address provided by the

owner/permit holder to the authorities at the time of registration and

by giving incorrect and incomplete address they go scot-free even

after indulging in illegal activities of fleecing commuters.

2. On behalf of the respondent No.2, it has been fairly conceded

by Ms.Jyoti Singh, learned counsel appearing of the respondents, that

instances of refusal/misbehavior, overcharging by the autorickshaw

drivers are on the rise all over Delhi.

3. During the hearing on 10th March, 2008 this Court had asked

the petitioners as well as the respondents to give suggestions to curb

the malpractices of the autorickshaw drivers in Delhi. Petitioners

have made the following suggestions:

"1. Direction to update and strictly verify the entire database of all autorickshaws registered with the Transport Department of the GNCTD with a fixed period of 3 to 6 months or some other period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. Special attention should be paid for confirming and verifying the identity and address of the owner/permit holder.

2. Direction making it mandatory for all autorickshaws to carry and display in the autorickshaw at all times inter alia the following details:

a. Name and address of the owner and/or permit holder

b. Name and address of the Driver, in case the driver himself is not the owner/permit holder.

c. A valid ID and address proof of the owner/permit holder/driver

3. Direction to increase the strength of staff from the Weights & Measures Department (which do surprise checks on autorickshaws for tampered meters) and in case the same is not possible, then to equip and train the field staff of Delhi Police and Delhi Traffic Police to detect meter/seal tampering and rigging.

4. Increase the compounding fee of offences commonly committed by autorickshaws, as has been recently directed by this Hon'ble Court in case offences committed by private vehicles wherein the fines have been increased from Rs.100/- to Rs.600/-. Impounding of vehicle and

cancellation of permit for repeat offender who commit similar offence for more than 2 times.

5. Devising a system to challan erring autorickshaws on the spot of complaint itself in the presence of the complainant, at least on and near major roads, intersections, auto stands, pre-paid TSR stands, police beat boxes etc where Delhi Police and Delhi Traffic Police personnel are present on patrolling /traffic duties.

4. We may mention that suggestion Nos. 1&2 above are

acceptable to the respondents and the respondents have agreed to

implement the said suggestions within a period of three months. As

regards suggestion No.3, Ms.Jyoti Singh states that increase of staff

strength will be considered by the Department and appropriate

decision in this behalf will be taken.

5. The fourth suggestion made by the petitioner is regarding

increase in the compounding fee for offences commonly committed

by autorickshaw drivers, which at present is Rs.100/-. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has referred to the directions issued by this

Court that for the offences committed by the private vehicles, the

minimum fine should be Rs.600/- instead of Rs.100/-. This direction,

however, is stayed by the Supreme Court as it is not backed by any

statutory rule.

The suggestion given by the respondents contain a proposal

that the Department intends to notify that refusal/mis-behaviuor/

overcharging shall amount to violation of permit conditions and shall

result in penalty of Rs.5,000/-, which would be leviable for violation of

permit conditions. Prima facie, in our opinion, this suggestion by the

Department i.e. to increase penalty from Rs.100/- to Rs.5,000/-, is

highly excessive and harsh. The Department should consider an

appropriate increase in the fines, after consulting all concerned

parties, including the associations of permit holders/owners,

autorickshaw drivers and consumers/passengers etc.

6. Apart from the aforesaid suggestions, the following suggestions

are made on behalf of the respondents:

"(i) There is no doubt that instances of refusal, misbehavior and over-charging by the autorickshaw driver are on the rise all over Delhi. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to empower personnel of Delhi Police, Delhi Traffic Police, PCR Vans, Mobile Traffic including motorcycle partrol for challaning autorickshaw drivers for these offences under provision of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules. Further, the various helplines of Delhi Police, Delhi Traffic Police and SMS service of Traffic Police should also be made available for the purpose of registering such complaints by various commuters. This fact could be published widely for the convenience of the commuters. This would provide round the clock enforcement by these agencies and would be a major deterrent and go a long way in curbing the menace of overcharging, misbehavior and refusal by autorickshaw drivers.

(ii) The department further proposes that the driving licences of the autorickshaw drivers who

refuse/misbehave or overcharge from passengers/intending passengers may be seized at the spot and proceedings be initiated in terms of section 19(F) and rule 21 for disqualifying the offenders from holding a driving license or revocation of such a licence. The proposed action of disqualification/revocation would be in addition to the challaning of the autorickshaw owners/drivers for violation of Motor Vehicle Act/rule or permit conditions. Section 200 & 208 of M.V.Act pertaining to composition of offences and summary disposal of cases by the Court needs to be clarified being independent and separate from the powers of the licensing authority as contained in Section 19 of the Act. The department is, however, of the view that if the licensing authority is satisfied that licensee has committed any act specified under Section 19, it may suspend or revoke the license, irrespective of the fact that any such act amounted to an offence, which has been compounded. This will have a deterrent effect and shall help discipline the driver and minimize such violation.

(iii) On the complaints against autorickshaws received through helpline numbers of Transport Department as also the helplne numbers and SMS numbers of Traffic police, Show cause notice u/s 133 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is issued to the permit holder and in case the notice is returned undelivered, on two occasions, an inference could be drawn that (a) either the address of the autorickshaw owner/permit holder given to registering/permit issuing authority is forged one or (b) the address has not been updated by the permit holder in the records of the Transport Department as required under Motor Vehicle Act and Rules made thereunder. Sections 53 & 55 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides for suspension/cancellation of registration in such cases. Law further required the Registering Authority to give the owner an opportunity of being heard in such cases before taking any such action of suspension/cancellation. Since the addresses of these permit holders/registered owners of autorickshaws are either incorrect or wrong, the opportunity of individual hearing in such cases needs to

be permitted by giving an appropriate public notice in this regard.

7. The respondents are directed to implement various

suggestions, after consultation with all concerned parties and bring

out a new comprehensive policy within a period of three months.

The petition stands disposed of with these directions.

                                         CHIEF JUSTICE



                                         S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 30, 2008                               JUDGE
'v'