BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 252 of 2015 Date of Institution: 8.6.2015
Date of Decision: 29.6.2015
Rakesh Kumar Dhawan, Aged about 25 years, Son of Sh. Rajinder Dhawan, Resident of Kucha Barkat Ram, Near Mohalla Sodiyan Wala, Ferozepur City.
....... Complainant
Versus
- District Transport Officer, Ferozepur.
- The Secretary, State of Punjab, Department of Transport, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. S.P. Bajaj, Advocate.
C.C. No. 252 of 2015 -2-
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs on the allegation that he purchased Platina 100 motorcycle and applied for registration certificate to the opposite party on 12.6.2014 alongwith tax paid receipt of Rs.2200/- dated 12.6.2014. The application fee was received by OP No.1 and it was marked as 172, but after 4/5 months, OP No.1 returned the application form to the complainant on the pretext that by that time the rate of tax has been increased to the tune of 6%, whereas, the complainant has already paid the tax @ 4% which was prevalent at that time. The complainant has placed on the file copy of Form No.20 showing it to be submitted on 12.6.2014, but it not evident that this application form was ever received by OP No.1 and marked as 172, as alleged by the complainant. Earlier also, the complainant had filed C.C. No 197 of 2015 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. D.T.O. on the same cause of action, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.5.2015. The said file put up from the record room and a perusal of which reveals that in para No.4 of the said complaint, the complainant himself has pleaded that he could not apply for registration certificate and thereafter when he applied for
C.C. No. 252 of 2015 -3-
registration certificate, in the meantime, tax payable on the vehicle increased to 6% and the OPs demanded 2% more from him. In the said complaint, copy of Form 20 was also not placed on the file by the complainant. Moreover, the fact regarding filing of earlier complaint on the same cause of action and its withdrawal has also been concealed by the complainant in the present complaint. A perusal of copy of notification dated 7.10.2014 placed on the file by the complainant reveals that increased rate of tax of 6% was applicable w.e.f 8.10.2014. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen to the complainant for filing the present complaint against the OPs. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed in limine. A copy of this order be supplied to the complainant. File be consigned to record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
29.6.2015 President
(Gyan Singh) Member
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
