1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of Tata make Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-05AB-9036 registered with OP No.3 and is paying road tax for plying the vehicle.  The Ops 2 & 3 collect M.V. Taxes directly and also through OP.1.  The OP No.2 does not receive road tax since the vehicle is registered with OP.3 unless NOC is granted by the later though the vehicle is plied in Koraput region.  As per decision of the Government, the Post Offices are authorised to receive taxes of the vehicle and accordingly the complainant deposited Rs.4306/- towards M.V. Tax with OP.1 vide Receipt No.17 dt.15.7.14 in respect of his vehicle for the quarter July to Sept., 2014.  It is submitted that when the complainant attempted to deposit tax during last week of September, 2014 in the office of OP.3, he was informed that the office of OP.3 has not received the tax for the previous quarter and insisted to deposit tax for previous quarter and penalty.  The complainant showed the receipt granted by OP.1 but to no effect.  On the approach of the complainant, the OP.1 confirmed the deposit of tax pertaining to the vehicle of the complainant and issued certificate to that effect but the Ops 2 & 3 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and forced the complainant to deposit tax for 2 quarters with penalty and accordingly the OP.3 collected Rs.18, 267/- on 18.10.2014 out of which a sum of Rs.9671/- was collected towards penalty citing late payment of tax.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant prayed the Forum to direct the Ops to pay Rs.81, 512/- on different counts to the complainant for the injustice caused to him.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the deposit of Rs.4306/- by the complainant towards M.V.Tax at Jeypore (K) Fort Sub Post Office on 15.7.2014 was received vide Receipt No.17 dt.15.7.14 but as the complainant never stated that the deposit of tax is meant for RTA, Cuttuck, the Post Master as per usual practice issued receipt in respect of RTO, Koraput and the deposit was remitted to the RTO, Koraput  vide Post Master, Koraput HO Cheque No.734734 dt.17.8.15.  Thus pleading no deficiency in service on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The Ops. 2 filed its reply contending that the RTO, Koraput is nothing to do in this matter as the vehicle belongs to RTO, Cuttack and all the activities are being done there. It is further contended that the postal deposit has been discontinued since last 3 years and if the deposit proof will be produced with B.D. before RTO, Cuttack the tax may be taken into account by RTO, Cuttack.  The OP No.3 in spite of valid notice neither preferred to file counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and thus the OP was set ex parte vide order No.17 dt.21.4.2016 of the Forum.

4.                     The complainant has filed affidavit and the OP.1 filed one document in support of their cases.  Heard from the complainant through his A/R and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case, the M. V. Tax of Rs.4306/- deposited by the complainant in respect of his vehicle for the quarter July-Sept., 2014 with the Op.1 on 15.7.2014 is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that Ops 2 & 3 collect M. V. Tax of vehicles directly and also through OP.1.  It is further stated that the OP.2 does not collect the tax unless NOC is granted by OP.3 as the vehicle is plying in Koraput Region.  The complainant has option to deposit tax through Post Office in favour of any RTO.  Accordingly, the complainant has deposited Rs.4306/- with OP.1 to be transferred to the accounts of RTO, Cuttack but the OP.1 stated that the complainant never disclosed that payment is in favour of RTO, Cuttack.

6.                     No deposit slip and postal receipt is filed by the complainant in support of his case in order to ascertain the facts.  The OP.1 stated that he issued receipt against the deposit in respect of RTO, Koraput.  The complainant nowhere stated that he instructed the OP.1 or submitted postal slip meant for transfer of payment in favour of RTO, Cuttack.  When the OP.1 granted receipt in favour of RTO, Koraput, the complainant should have objected the fact and the mistake if any could have been rectified then and there but the complainant did not do so.  Further the OP.1 has sent the amount to RTO, Koraput and hence we found no intention of OP.1 to grant receipt in favour of RTO, Koraput as not properly instructed.  Had the complainant requested the OP.1 for remittance of the deposit to RTO, Cuttack, this mistake would not have been occurred.  No such paper is filed by the complainant to that effect.  Therefore, the OP.1 acted honestly which at no stretch of imagination could be construed as deficiency in service on its part.  Moreover, the OP.1 has issued certificate in favour of the complainant admitting receipt of payment as admitted by the complainant.

7.                     As the OP.3 has not received the M. V. Tax for previous quarter, he cannot receive tax for current quarter ignoring such arrears.  Further this is a case of tax deposit by the complainant to the Govt. to ply his vehicle.  The complainant is not the consumer of Ops as they do not provide any service for consideration as defined under the Act.  In this case, by collecting tax, the Ops are discharging their statutory functions.  The tax paid for plying vehicle, in our opinion, is not by way of consideration for service.  Tax is a permanent contribution to the public fund and hence tax is a levy.  As such the complainant is not the consumer of the Ops.

8.                     In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this case and is liable to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)