Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The caseof the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant was interested to purchase a Dumper on auction sale from OP No.1. It is alleged that she has participated in the auction sale and being the highest bidder purchased the Dumper on payment of Rs.3,40,000/-After auction purchase the complainant filed application before the RTO, Sundargarh to transfer the ownership. At the same time OP No.  1 has also requested  OP No. 2 to find out the tax required to be payable. OP No.2 asked the complainant to pay Rs.33,930/- as arrear of tax for the period covering  from 1.1.2003 to 31.3.2006 along with penalty of Rs.67,860/- for effective transfer of ownership. Complainant madeappealagainst that order before the Collector. The Collectorremained silent on the issue. The vehicle hasalready been handed over to the complainant. Since nobody listened to her words, she filed the complaint.

4.      OP No.1 filed written version stating that after due sale notice and tender call, the complainant was found highest bidder. It was also the terms and conditions of auction sale that the auction seller is not responsible for arrear tax etc for transfer of ownership. The case against OP No. 1 should be dismissed.

5.      OP No. 2 has filed separate written version stating that the vehicle was purchased and he has received notice from the registered owner of the vehicle with demand notice on 31.12.2002. However, they denied the deficiency in service on their part.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                   “xxxxxxxxx

Thus we allow the case of the complainant and direct the OP No.1 DWO cum District Manager, OSFDC Ltd, Sundargarh to clear all the dues of the vehicle No. OR-16A-2727 before the date of auctionwithin 15 days of receipt of this order and OP No.2 is directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in favour of Smt. LalitaBehera. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) onlyto the complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony within the above period failing which the OP No.1 would be liable to pay Rs.1000/- every day after 15 days of receipt of this order till the actual date of payment of arrear dues of vehicle No. OR 16A 2727.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  they have issued the auction notice clarifying all situation including the payment of tax etc. against the OP No.1. Further he submitted that the claim of the complainant has no merit and it should be dismissed. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the  appellantand perused the impugned order including the DFR.

9.      It is admitted fact that vehicle in question was put to auction and the complainant becamethe auction purchaser. The sale notice also enclosed as Annexure – 3 shows that there  conditions were  attached to the said notice stating that the upset price of dumper was  at Rs.3,40,000/- with the six terms and conditions. It is mentioned therein at clause – 6 that the authority is not responsible for any liability regarding tax/penalty/liability  against the vehicle. When the complainant is the auction purchaser the terms and conditions are binding on her.

10.    When OP No.2 issued notice to pay arrear of M.V.Tax, the appellant cannot be held responsible. Moreover, section 12 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act disclose that thetransferee has to pay the arrear tax pending against thevehicle.

11.    In view of above discussion, the notice to pay the tax cannot be said as improper and on the other hand deficiency in service has not been proved by the complainant. Hence, the entire responsibility lies on the complainant to pay the arrear tax.

12.    In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order having not discussed in the light of our observation made above, the same is set aside.

13.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

           DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.