SHRI K.D.DASH,MEMBER:- Complainant M/s Hotel Pramod Pvt.Ltd., represented through its Director Prasanta Kumar Sahu calls in question here in this complaint the  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as caused by the O.P., the Regional Transport Officer, Sambalpur in dealing with the payment of one time road tax amounting to Rs.70,532/- while purchasing a Light Motor Vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., from Minorava Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Bolangir and return of the excess amount paid twice for the same.
    2. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 10.6.2013 he purchased a light motor vehicle Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.XUV 500F.W.D. W8-J.C.Blue colour vehicle bearing Chassis No.MA1YL2HJUD 6 D 14137 Engine No.HJUD 4 C 19681 from Mahindra Automobiles (Minorava Automobiles Pvt., Ltd., Bolangir). After purchase of the same complainant paid the total amount of the vehicle to the dealer inclusive of one-time road tax so that after deposit of the same before the Motor Vehicle Department, they will allow the complainant the service to use the road for plying the vehicle.
    3. It is submitted that on 17.6.2013 the said Minorava Automobiles Pvt.Ltd.,Bolangir deposited the road tax amounting to Rs.70,532/- along with the temporary registration  fee and registration fee on line, and it was duly received by the Odisha Motor Vehicle Department which was proved through Receipt  No.13060015946 vide computer generated receipt dt.17.6.2013.
    4. The complainant made arrangement for preparation of the R.C.Book and gave all the relevant documents for registration before the R.T.O., Sambalpur on 17.6.2013 for registration of the vehicle but the office of the R.T.O., Sambalpur demanded further one-time road tax amounting to Rs.70,790/-, and accordingly, due to the wrong advice of the O.P., the complainant in good faith paid the same in the office of the O.P. The O.P. received the said one time tax and issued receipt No.AB 2705061 dt.17.6.2013 and accordingly, the said vehicle was registered in the office of the O.P. on 18.6.2013 vide Regd.No.OD-15-A-2841.
    5. For the purpose of one time road tax, the O.P. and its authorities received one time tax twice for the selfsame service by giving wrong information to the complainant as because at that time the complainant had got no knowledge about the payment made by Minorava Automobiles Pvt.Ltd., Bolangir. The aforesaid action of the O.P. is challenged as illegal and arbitrary and it is claimed that the claimant is entitled to get back the sum of Rd.70,790/- from the O.P.
    6. After knowing the aforesaid matter from the authorised dealer, the complainant enquired the matter, collected the material documents in that regard and requested the O.P. for refund of the aforesaid amount which was paid twice for the selfsame vehicle as mentioned above, but the O.P. denied to refund the same.
    7.  It is claimed that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to get appropriate service for which the money is being paid to the O.P. for the purpose of appropriate service but the O.P. has committed wrong by directing the complainant to pay the selfsame tax twice and as such, it is guilty of unfair trade practice.
    8. As the O.P. did not refund the money claimed above, the complainant sent registered Advocate notice on 23.12.2013 and also it was written to other authorities but till now the O.P. has not returned the aforesaid sum, and as such, it became necessary for the complainant to take shelter of this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act for redressal of the matter. 
    Thus, the complainant claims to:
(i) Get back the amount of Rs.70,790/- with an  interest @ 12% from the date of deposit  till it is returned back by the O.P. and 
(ii) To pay compensation and litigation charges as considered just and proper by the Forum.
9. We have heard the learned counsels for complainant as well as the learned G.P., Sambalpur 
appeared on behalf of the O.P. Perused the documents. Went through the written submissions of the parties.  The case is keenly contested from the side of the O.P.                                        
    10. The complainant relied upon the following documents for his case, which are Xerox copies of
    (1) Certificate for the vehicle vide Invoice No.INV 4 A 000031 issued by Minorava Automobiles , Bolangir (2) Copy of temporary certificate of Registration for the vehicle (3) Payment receipt No.13060015946 issued by Odisha Motor Vehicle Department. (4) Receipt No.AB 2705061 issued by O.P. amounting to Rs.70,790/- (5) Registration certificate for the vehicle bearing No.OD-15-A-2841 (6) Regd. Advocate notice, its receipt and A.D. dt.27.12.2013.
    11. Reiterating the entire contentions let out in the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has paid the dues twice and after receiving the required amount for the purpose, the O.P. should have returned back the extra amount without any objection. It is forcefully submitted that such attitude of the O.P. is nothing but carelessness and therefore, amounts to deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice in providing due service to the complainant. The learned counsel relied upon  two decisions reported in  2009(1) CLR (SC)-714 Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn & Another Vrs. Ashok Iron Works Pvt.Ltd. and 2000 SAR (Civil) 40 Supreme Court Revneet Singh Baggar Vrs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Another in support of his claim.
    Thus it is submitted by the learned counsel to allow the claim of the complainant and redress the matter under its legal pursuit. 
    12. The case is vehemently opposed by the G.P.  on the ground of its maintainability. Though the learned G.P. admitted that payment was made for twice for the very said purpose of tax, it was not on imposition of the O.P., but due to the fault of the complainant who did not bring the fact to the knowledge of the O.P on payment of tax once through the dealer by e-transaction process that had not reached then to the O.P. at the time of such a payment for the second time and the matter was completed without any objection to it. But, it is argued by the O.P. that the claim and case of the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum and as such can hardly be admitted under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is because of the reason, as urged by the learned G.P. is that, the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the purpose of payment of such an amount also does not come  as service as enumerated under section 2(1)(o) of the said Act.
    13. It is submitted by the learned G.P. that the present complaint is in relation to tax paid to the O.P. for registration of a vehicle and such a matter is regulated by provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and the rules made thereunder. It is contended by the O.P. that, tax payers are usually not considered to be consumers. The reason being that tax is a statutory imposition which goes to the general exchequer. The money collected from a tax payer is not used for the sole benefit of that person while a fee is paid by a person for a particular service rendered only to him. When a fee is paid, there is “quid pro quo”, which means the payer gets a service in return for his payment. Thus, there is a nexus between the payment made and the service rendered. So a person who pays fees is consumer of the services provided to him.
Thus the O.P. submitted to dismiss the case and direct the complainant to take shelter before 
the proper Forum  for redressal of the matter. 
    14. The learned G.P. relied upon three decisions of the Honble Apex Court reported in:
1994 SCC(1) 243 ( Lucknow Development Authority Vrs. M.K.Gupta, 1994 SCC(4) 225 Morgan Stanley Vrs. Kartik Das, 1996 SCC(1) 573 S.P.Goel  Vrs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi in support of his case.
    15. After hearing both the parties, going through the written submissions along with the citations of the Honble Supreme Court and on detail scrutiny of the matter, the very criterias of ‘consumer’ and ‘service’  defined under section2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) respectively under the Act comes at its outset for consideration of the matter and so far as the very legal implication of both definitions are concerned, the case of the complainant does not fall under the very guidelines mentioned thereunder it covering thereby the matter under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 and therefore, we are of the same opinion  with that  of the  very contentions of the learned Govt.Pleader that the case can hardly be maintainable under the Act. It is because of the reason   that tax payers are usually not considered as consumers as tax happens to be a statutory imposition on them under the very guidelines of a special statute which goes to the general exchequer. Such a payment under the very head by a person  is quite distinguished from  that of the very meaning  of fee and therefore, can  hardly be said that, that  very particular person  emerges with and owes certain rights accruing thereby of rendering any services from the concerned authority  or person and endowed with any responsibility therefor. In other words, the payment and duty of colleting tax comes under its sovereign function of an authority and therefore is immune from that of the clauses of the Consumer Protection Act.
    16. But fact remains that in the complaint at hand, in the name of tax, money has been paid twice for the very said purpose of the matter and the same is also not disputed by the O.P. The fact comes to us that there must be certain procedures, rules and regulations meant for such type of cases, where payment has been made twice and the refund thereof is concerned and the excess amount that has been paid would have been refunded to the complainant on complaint raised to that effect before the O.P. authority concerned. To us, it seems that, the first payment made before the dealer and transacted/deposited through e-payment has not been effected, may be due to certain internet problems and therefore, could not have been activated, which caused the O.P. in seeking and 
demanding for payment under that occasion andtherefore payment was done then by the complainant  It is evident that the fact of first payment that was made for the purpose has not been brought to the notice of the O.P. and subsequently after payment of the dues for the second time on demand; the first payment in the later part has been activated and has come to the O.P. Under the circumstance, the first payment that came subsequently to the authority/treasury of the O.P. remained as excess money under its account and cannot be considered and termed as the dues for tax but a separate account in excess and unaccounted for in the account of the O.P.and the complainant is entitled to get back the same as a matter of right and on the other hand, the O.P. cannot establish its legal authority over it and comes up with a duty to return the same to the payer complainant.
    17. In the circumstance and keeping in view that the matter remained pending before this Forum for the last two years and keeping in view the principles of natural justice, we consider it just and proper to act according to justice, equity and good conscience and therefore, come to the conclusion that the paid amount of Rs.70,532/- should be refunded by the O.P. to the complainant . It may be mentioned here that by passing such an order, we never intend or act by over-riding the express provisions of law but under the existing scenario it necessitates us to do so for administration of justice.
Thus the complaint is disposed of accordingly with direction to the O.P., R.T.O., Sambalpur to refund the amount of Rs.70,532/-(Rupees Seventy thousand five hundred thirty-two)  to the complainant within one month from the date of order.
    In the circumstances of the case no order is passed as to compensation or costs.