//JUDGMENT// This is a complaint filed by the Complainant against the Regional Transport Office for the refund of the tax. The facts in narrow compass are as under :- [2] The Complainant Mr. Pratap Bhanu Raghuvanshi was resident of Madhya Pradesh (MP). He had purchased one Indica Car for which he had paid lifetime tax at the R.T.O. Office , Madhya Pradesh. After sometime the Complainant decided to shift to Pune, Maharashtra where he was again required to pay the abovementioned tax. Since the car was to ply on the roads of Maharashtra, the Complainant applied to R.T.O. office MP for the refund of the tax which he had paid as resident of MP. It is the grievance of the Complainant that inspite of repeated requests, RTO, MP did not refund his tax which he had paid then. After continuous persistence, RTO MP informed the Complainant that since there was delay in asking for the refund, tax cannot be paid back to him. According to the Complainant he could make application to RTO, MP only after getting the Smart Card Registration at Maharashtra. After receiving the Smart Card, he immediately applied to the RTO, MP and therefore according to him there is no delay on his part in making the application. It is the grievance of the Complainant that he has been compelled to pay double tax for one car, which is very unfair. Hence has requested to direct the RTO, MP to refund his lifetime tax alongwith interest and other necessary compensation and cost of litigation. In support of his complaint, the Complainant has filed affidavit and 7 other documents. [3] When the notice was served on the RTO, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh and RTO, Chinchwad, Pune, Maharashtra, both of them appeared through Advocates and filed their written versions to the complaint of the Complainant. In their written version both the Opponents have challenged the legality of this complaint on the basis that the Complainant cannot be a “consumer” of the Regional Transport Office. Since the RTO doesn’t give service to the vehicle owners the dispute arising in this complaint cannot be considered as a consumer dispute. As per the rules of Madhya Pradesh Motor Yan Karadhan Rules, 1991, an application for the refund of the tax can be made only within a period of two months from the date when the vehicle is permanently removed from the State. It is the say of the RTO, MP that the Complainant had filed an application for refund of tax after five months and hence his claim was not admissible. According to RTO, MP the only remedy which is available to the Complainant is to make an application to the Transport Commissioner, MP against the order of the District Transport Officer. According to the RTO, MP, the complaint is also hopelessly barred by the limitation and hence on all these grounds as well as on the basis of the grounds mentioned above, the application be dismissed with costs. RTO, MP has filed affidavit of the authorized representative in support of its say. [4] RTO, Maharashtra has also filed their separate written version to the complaint application. They have also challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to entertain this complaint. They have elaborately discussed how there is no deficiency in their service while providing the Smart Card to the Complainant. The RTO, Maharashtra has filed affidavit and few other documents in support of its say. [5] After filing of the written version of the Opponents, the Complainant filed his rejoinder at Exh.26 alongwith 15 other documents. After filing of the rejoinder by the Complainant, the matter was posted for final hearing where the Complainant was heard in person. The Complainant also produced two authorities in support of his arguments. RTO, Maharashtra also produced one authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of their arguments and then the matter was posted for judgment. [6] On perusal of complaint, written version and evidence adduced by all the parties, the main and most important point which arises for the consideration of Forum is “whether the Complainant can file the present complaint as consumer under The Consumer Protection Act? The detail discussion of the Forum on this point is as under :- [7] It is the admitted position that the Complainant has filed this complaint before the Forum for the refund of life time road tax which he has paid to MP State Government. If we go through the definition of consumer enumerated in Sec.2 ( d ) of Consumer Protection Act it can be seen that a complaint can be filed for deficiency in service when the consideration is paid. To enable a person to file a complaint as a consumer there are two qualifying tests. First there has to be hiring of service and secondly such hiring of service should be for some reward or consideration. The present complaint involves the issue in respect of refund of tax. There is certainly a distinction between tax and consideration. Tax is a levy imposed by Government on the citizens and payment of such tax is mandatory. Whereas consideration is paid when parties enter into any agreement or contract out of their free will. Parties to such contract have freedom to decline to enter into contract. Consideration is also fixed as per the terms and conditions of contract. Whereas tax is a mandate which if not followed invites penalty. Tax is not the result of any agreement or contract and Government doesn’t render any service for the tax received. Taking into consideration all the above aspects it becomes crystal clear that the citizen who is paying the tax doesn’t become consumer of the State and hence can’t file a complaint against the Government under Consumer Protection Act. Hence the present complaint becomes liable to be dismissed on this count alone. [8] However before we part with this judgment we would like to mention that the Complainant has undoubtedly paid the life time road tax for one vehicle twice, once to the MP Government and second time to the Maharashtra Government. Though the Complainant has shifted from one State to another he still is the citizen of India. In our opinion it is unjust to burden the citizen of India with double tax only because he has shifted from one State to another. Though we are constrained to dismiss this complaint on the basis of the legal provisions we expect RTO of MP to have a sympathetic approach and make endeavor to return the amount of tax to the Complainant. This case also warrants a movement to bring necessary changes into the concerned rules so that the citizens do not get the feeling of being cheated at the hands of the Government. RTO, MP has mentioned in its say that the Complainant should have filed appeal before Transport Commissioner against the order of the District Transport Officer. Complainant is at liberty to make such an application before appropriate authority. With these observations, we pass the following order :- // ORDER // [i] Complaint stands rejected. [ii] No order as to costs. [iii] Certified copies of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. Place : Pune Date : 02/02/2011 (Smt. Pranali Sawant) PRESIDENT Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Smt.S.A. Bichkar) MEMBER Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Smt. S.L. Patankar) MEMBER Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune
| | [ Smt SA Bichkar] Member[ Pranali Sawant] PRESIDENT[ Smt. S.L.Patankar] MEMBER | | 
