Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint against opposite party seeking a direction to the opposite party to complete the work relating to his ambulance bearing No.A.T.V. 807 in R.T.O. office and make the said vehicle on road and return the documents at an early date.

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

The opposite party approached the complainant to clear               tax payments with regard to ambulance ATV 807 i.e., Green tax for appropriate license and pollution certificate in RTO office, Vijayawada for clearance and to put the said ambulance on road.  The Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- on 29-06-10 towards insurance, finance, challan for green tax, Rs.500/- on 15-07-10 towards finance cancellation charges, Rs.5,000/- on 18-08-10 towards insurance, on 08-11-10 Rs.200/- towards insurance charges and on 15-09-10 Rs.400/- towards services charges.  The opposite party took RC book as well as old insurance certificate from the complainant for submission in the office of RTO, Vijayawada for verification of tax balance and clearance.   The opposite party used to inform that the work was in progress whenever asked.   The complainant waited for about three months.   The complainant informed the attitude of the opposite party to the Circle Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli before approaching legal Forums, marking a copy to the complainant.  In spite of that there was no response from the opposite party.  The opposite party on the other hand, returned a sealed cover without any covering letter.  The complainant did not open the sealed letter without bringing to the notice of legal authorities.   The attitude of the opposite party in returning the documents without doing service amounted to deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.  The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The complainant is guilty of suppression of material facts and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant did not file any document to prove contents of the affidavit.   The complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations which are not specifically admitted.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   The opposite party was set exparte at a later stage as failed to participate in subsequent proceedings.   The matter is hence decided exparte.

5.     Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of complainant.                   

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
3. To what relief?

7.  POINT No.1:-    The opposite party in his version made a general denial.   The opposite party did not deny specifically regarding the amounts paid by the complainant to him and the nature of work entrusted to him.  The opposite party also did not deny specifically about he returning a sealed cover to the complainant through speed post.     

8.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 revealed that the opposite party received Rs.5,000/- on 29-06-10, Rs.500/- on 15-07-10 and Rs.5,000/- by way of cheque on 18-08-10 and Rs.200/- on 08-11-10.   The complainant made a representation to the Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli on              25-05-11 marking a copy to the opposite party through registered post (Ex.A-5).    Ex.A-6 revealed that the opposite party on 03-06-11 through speed post bearing No.EN51603457IN sent a cover to the complainant.   The cover contained RC of ATV 807, a letter addressed to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Vijayawada along with photo of ambulance, challan for Rs.50/-,  clearance certificate dated                  03-09-96 from M/s City Auto and General Financiers, Form 35 dated nil in duplicate.   

9.   It is not the case of the opposite party that he is unaware of the complainant.   The opposite party did not mention his case in positive way except general denial.  In the absence of any specific denial regarding the allegations leveled against him in his version by the opposite party amounted to admission. Sending a sealed cover through the speed post No.EN51603457IN leads us to draw an inference that the opposite party obtained the documents returned by him as stated supra earlier.  It can therefore be said that the opposite party did not complete the work undertook by him and returned the documents to him.  Therefore, we opine that the opposite party committed deficiency of service and answer this point in favour of the complainant.      

10.  POINT No.2:-     It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party returned a sealed cover to him without completing the work.   Returning sealed cover along with the documents mentioned supra by the opposite party to the complainant leads us to draw an inference that he has not intended to do the work of the complainant for the reasons best known to him.   The opposite party cannot be forced to do an unwilling work being a contract of service.  Therefore, this Forum cannot grant relief sought by the complainant.  Moreover the relief sought by the complainant is not in the hands of opposite party.   Under those circumstances, directing the opposite party to return the amount of Rs.11,100/- collected by him to the complainant will meet ends of justice.   We therefore answer this point accordingly.

11. POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.11,100/- (Rupees eleven thousand one hundred only) together with interest @9% p.a., from the date of order till realization.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs.  
3. The opposite party is further directed to deposit the said amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 27^th day of June, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party :   NIL

                                                                                                               PRESIDENT