Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/30/2017

Bhagirathi Garanayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Transport Officer - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                                C.C.Case No. 30 of 2017

Bhagirathi Garanayak, aged about 50 years

S/o Chaitanya Garnayak,

At/Po: Neulapoi, P.S: Gondia, Dist: Dhenkanal                 …............Complainant

                                                                                Versus

Regional Transport Officer,

Dhenkanal, At: Kunjakanta, PO/Dist: Dhenkanal             …............Opp. Party

Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                 Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

Counsel: For the complainant: Satyaranjan Satpathy & Associates

                  For the Opp. Party:  Addl. Govt. Pleader, Dhenkaal

Date of hearing  15.11.2017

Date of order: 24.11.2017

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.

                1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant stated are that for his self-employment, the petitioner purchased a vehicle bearing No. OR06A-5996 (Truck) having Engine No.697D24LUQ146858 and Chassis No. 360044MUQ133837.  On 28.11.2011 the complainant sold his vehicle to one Kedar Gouri Das, S/o Kishore Das of village Ranigoda, PS/Dist: Angul on receipt of consideration amount.  The complainant and the said purchaser Kedargouri Das executed separate affidavit and signed on form No.29 & 30 before Notary, Dhenkanal showing the transfer of ownership from the complainant to Kedargouri Das.  On 28.11.2011 both the complainant and Kedargouri Das had been to the office of the O.P for documentation of transfer of ownership of the vehicle and in presence of the O.P both the complainant and Kedargouri Das signed on the order sheet for transfer of ownership.  The O.P put his endorsement on the order sheet and as per his direction the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- vide money receipt No. AA6458492 dtd. 28.11.2011 towards transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question.  On the date of execution of transfer of ownership the vehicle had valid permit and fitness to ply on the road, tax paid up to date and the vehicle had valid insurance policy.  Hence there was no impediments for transfer of ownership of the vehicle from the name of the complainant to Kedargouri Das.  On the very day of transfer of ownership the complainant handed over all the documents to Kedargouri Das.  It is alleged that the complainant on 8.8.2016 received a demand notice from the Opp. Party for Rs. 70,880/- of the vehicle.  On receipt of this demand notice the complainant had been to the office of the O.P to enquiry about the status of ownership of the vehicle and ascertained that the ownership has not been changed till date.  Further on enquiry from Kedargouri Das he replied that he has been paying the taxes regularly till June-2014.  The complainant filed his show cause in response to the demand notice of the O.P requesting therein that since he had handed over all the documents, key of the vehicle along with the vehicle to Kedargouri Das, signed on the order sheet of the transfer of ownership and as per direction also he deposited the required fees of Rs. 300/- .  But inspite of reply to the demand notice, the Opp. Party did not take into consideration and also sent another demand notice of tax for the period from 2015-2016. It is further stated that the Opp. Party is receiving Tax amount from Kedar Gouri Das for the impugned vehicle regularly but did not transfer the ownership of the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant is not the owner, but the Opp. Party sending demand notice repeatedly to the complainant for payment of tax for which the complainant has been harassed and sustained mental agony. Therefore, the complainant prays to direct the Opp. Party to waive out the tax amount against the complainant as has been demanded.  Besides, the complainant claims compensation and cost of the litigation of Rs. 90,000/-.  The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.

2)        The Opp. Party appeared and filed his written version.  It is in the version of the Opp. Party that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer.  The entire allegation of the petitioner comes under the purview of O.M.V.T Act, 1975 for which this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.  It is also admitted that the complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-06-A-5996 (Truck) hence he is liable to pay all the taxes to the Government as per Govt. rules and regulations.  The complainant has stated that he had already transferred the vehicle to one Kedargouri Das but he has not been made a party to the present case.  On 28.11.2011 the complainant transferred the vehicle in favour of Kedargouri das and deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- for transfer of ownership of the vehicle.  It is further stated that simple sworn of affidavit, or by signing the form 29 and 30 or depositing fee of Rs. 300/- in no way change the ownership of the vehicle from the name of the petitioner to the name of Kedargouri Das. Specific orders ought to be passed by the competent authority for transfer of ownership of the vehicle and there ought to be an endorsement in the connected documents of the vehicle as regards to change of ownership of the vehicle Further the change of ownership of the vehicle ought to be carried out after clearance from the Police as regards to non-involvement of vehicle in any criminal prosecution.  The complainant failed to deposit the road tax and other legitimate taxes of the Govt. for which the Opp. Party issued a letter vide No.930 Dt. 8.8.2016 to the complainant to deposit the arrear taxes as assessed in the said letter.  The complainant submitted his objection to the show cause notice on 25.10.2016 denying his liability on the ground that he had already transferred the vehicle to one Kedargouri Das.   The complainant has paid the tax of the vehicle up to June-2014 and since the ownership has not been transferred he is bound to pay the tax to the Govt.  The Complainant and the purchaser Kedargour Das has not submitted the required documents for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle in the office of the R.T.O Dhenkanal till today.  Accordingly, it is pleaded to dismiss the case is not maintainable.  The contents of the written version are supported by affidavit.  

                3) While parting with orders and before going into the merits of the case we have gone through the documents, complaint petition and on our careful perusal of the record we find that in the cause title of the complaint petition one Bhagirathi Garanayak aged about 50 years has filed the present case wherein one Bhabagrahi Garanayak has signed the complaint petition. The   Receipt showing payment of Transfer of ownership for Rs. 3,00/-(Three Hundred Only) discloses that the owner of the vehicle is one Bhabagrahi Garanaik    Further on our perusal of the documents available on record filed in the case go to show that the owner of the vehicle is one Bhabagrai Garanaik and all the documents executed  by  the said Bhabagrahi Garanaik.  But surprisingly, the cause title of the complaint petition the name of one Bhagirathi Garanayak has been mentioned.  Therefore, since the name mentioned in the cause title of the complaint petition is not same as appears in the affidavit, and documents we think it just and proper not to go into the merits of the case and in our opinion the case is not maintainable in view of filing of the case by a wrong person who has no nexus with the present dispute.  Accordingly, the case is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.  Hence ordered.

                                                                                ORDER

                The complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed on contest in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.

 

(Badal Bihari Pattanaik)                                                           (Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy)

           President                                                                                 Member