Man gets penalty notice for auto sold 15 years ago

TNN, Sep 27, 2010; CHENNAI:

N K Shanmugam, a resident of Chetput, was shocked when he received a notice from the police in April 2008 asking him to pay a fine of Rs 50 as his autorickshaw had violated a stop line at Nandanam signal. He had owned an autorickshaw but had sold it 15 years ago.

"I still don't understand how an autorickshaw can ply in my name. After I sold my autorickshaw, I have not even renewed my permit. The registration number of the autorickshaw mentioned in the notice is different from the one I owned," he says.

So Shanmugam filed an application under the Right To Information (RTI) Act with the Ayanavaram regional transport office (RTO) asking for a copy of the registration and permit records of the autorickshaw in question so that he could trace the person who registered the vehicle in his name. He also asked for the photograph of the person affixed in the RTO's records.

But the transport office didn't respond to the RTI application, following which Shanmugam moved the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission last year.

Lakshmipathi, the then public information officer of Ayanavaram RTO, appeared before the commission three months ago and submitted an affidavit saying there was no practice of affixing the photograph of the vehicle owner at the time of registration of the autorickshaw. Shanmugam contested this saying the records must have contained the photograph of the person who registered the vehicle.

Following this, the commission directed Lakshmipathi to produce the vehicle registration register last month. Accordingly, Lakshmipathi produced it and the commission found the photograph.

Taking strong exception to the official having lied, the commission in its order passed last week directed the transport commissioner to frame charges against Lakshmipathi as he had filed a false affidavit. It also wanted to know why departmental and criminal action should not be taken against him and why the maximum penalty should not be imposed.

Holding that it was perjury and action could be taken under the Indian Penal Code, the commission asked the transport commissioner to ensure that the RTI applicant was compensated with a sum of Rs 2,500 for the expenses he had to incur.

Shanmugam said he did not know the person whose photograph was affixed in the registration records. "My autorickshaw permit must have lapsed as it has to be renewed every six months. Taking advantage of this, someone must have registered an autorickshaw in my name. If nothing is done, I will lodge a police complaint," said Shanmugam.