This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 03-04-14 in the presence of Sri N. Vijaya Bhaskar, advocate for complainant and opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-    

          The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.21,140/- together with interest @12% p.a., from 22-04-13 till realisation; Rs.10,000/- as damages towards mental agony and suffering and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainant being owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP7BT1000 paid Rs.1,19,670/- to the opposite party towards life tax on 24-03-13.   The opposite party also collected Rs.21,140/- on 24-03-13 itself contending that the complainant owned another vehicle bearing Nos.AP16BA 3883 and AP16BA 6448 ignoring his protest.  The complainant is not owner of the vehicle bearing Nos.AP16BA 3883 and AP16BA 6448.   The complainant also submitted notarized affidavit that no other vehicle stood registered in his name.   The complainant on 03-05-13 issued a notice to the opposite party seeking return of Rs.21,140/-.   The opposite party on 15-05-13 sent reply to the complainant stating that separate notices were being issued to the existing registered owner residing at Vijayawada for clarification and after receipt of information status will be informed by him.   For want of reply from the opposite party the complainant again on 03-09-13 issued another notice reminding the above facts and to settle the claim.   The opposite party though received notice on 04-09-13 kept quite without giving any reply.  The opposite party is dodging the matter on some pretext or other.   The opposite party illegally collecting Rs.21,140/- towards difference of tax amounted to deficiency in service.   Due to the above attitude and behaviour of the opposite party the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.  The opposite party though received notice remained absent on 26-02-14 and as such was set exparte.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on behalf of complainant.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1. Whether the opposite party collected Rs.21,140/- illegally from the                             complainant and if so, amounted to deficiency of service?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

          3. To what relief?

6.   POINT  No.1:-         The opposite party gave Ex.A-3 reply on 15-05-13 to Ex.A-2 notice. The relevant portion in Ex.A-3 notice is extracted below for better appreciation:

          “With reference to the application received from                          Sri Chittabathini Srinivasa Rao s/o Kondaiah                                      R/o Vasantharayapuram, Guntur has purchased motor car with temporary registration No.AP28TXTR5912 with a cost of Rs.9,97,174/- and also reserved advance reservation number to the said vehicle AP07BT1000 and approached this office to register the vehicle duly paying required fees of Rs.435/- in receipt No.AP007/88594/2013/R (GUTCC0007/7993).

         As per Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1963 in Schedule-7 (See Fifth Proviso to sub-section (2) of              Section 3) any registered owner possess another non transport vehicle liable to pay life tax @14% on the cost of the vehicle.   As verified this office data base bearing registration numbers AP16BA6448 stands in the name of Sri Chittabathini Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kondaiah.   As per this office data base at present revised software (3-tier) has assessed that the applicant liable to pay difference tax of Rs.21,140/-.   The copy of the difference tax is also enclosed for information.

         Hence there is no illegal collection by this department as shown in the office database.

         However, the separate notices are being issued to the existing registered owner who are residing at Vijayawada, Krishna District for final clarification in this regard after receipt of information the status will be informed to the applicant and the learned council”.      

7.   The complainant on 03-09-13 gave another notice (Ex.A-4) referring to Ex.A-3 reply.   The opposite party received Ex.A-3 notice on 04-09-13 as seen from Ex.A-5 postal acknowledgment.   The complainant in order to substantiate his case filed vehicle registration search through the website A.P.TRASNPORT DEPARTMENT online services (Ex.A-7) in respect of the vehicle AP16BA 6448 which was referred to in Ex.A-3 reply.   Ex.A-7 revealed that one Venkateswara Rao Madupalli was shown as registered owner of the vehicle AP 16BA 6448 which was referred to in Ex.A-3 reply.

8.   The averments mentioned in the complaint and affidavit remained uncontraverted as the opposite party remained exparte.  Absence of any reply to Ex.A-4 notice from the opposite party corroborated the complainant’s contention.   On perusal of Ex.A-3 and A-7 it can be said that the opposite party collected Rs.21,140/- illegally on 24-03-13 alleging that the complainant owned another vehicle.  We therefore, opine that the opposite party collecting Rs.21,140/- excessively amounted to deficiency in service and the opposite party has to return the said amount of Rs.21,140/- together with interest @9% p.a., from 15-05-13.   We therefore answer this point in favour of the complainant.

9.   POINT No.2:-   The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony from the opposite party.   Absence of reply to Ex.A-4 notice should have caused mental agony to the complainant.   It is well settled in law that the compensation to be awarded should commensurate with the injury complained off.   As interest was awarded to the complainant granting compensation of Rs.2000/- will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly in favour of the complainant. 

10.  POINT No.3:-    In view of above findings, in the result the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.21,140/- (Rupees twenty one thousand, one hundred and forty only) together with interest @9% p.a., from                    15-05-13 till payment and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs with a direction to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 4^th day of April, 2014.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:    NIL

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.