By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant had been the owner of a Maruthi Car No.KL 12-8190. The tax liable to be paid was paid in time by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. In course of use of the vehicle the tax receipt and RC Book of the vehicle was lost and on application for a duplicate R.C, the Opposite Party demanded the payment of the tax again for the issuance of the duplicate R.C. In accordance with the direction of the Opposite Party the Complainant remitted the tax for the period from 01.10.2002 to 30.9.2006 and the duplicate R.C book was obtained on payment of Rs.5,800/- the tax amount. The vehicle transferred in sale on 18.8.2007 and a tax receipt and original R.C was found out from the dickey of the vehicle on 22.9.2008. The Complainant had given an application to the Opposite Party on 25.9.2008 for the refund of the excess amount remitted. The request on the part of the Complainant for the refund of the remitted excess amount remained unanswered. The Complaint is filed in this effect on the non refund of the excess amount collected towards the tax which is also a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to refund the excess amount Rs.5,800/- remitted by the Complainant.

2. The Opposite Party was sent notice, on receiving the notice the Opposite Party has not filed version even after the laps of chances and the Opposite Party is declared as exparte.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. A1 to A3 are marked as the documents of Complainant's side. The case of the Complainant is that Rs.5,800/- was remitted by the Complainant towards the tax from 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2006. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by Janasevana Kendram dated 17.1.2006 that shows that Rs.5800/- was remitted by the Complainant for the second time. It is to be considered that the plea of the Complainant to get a duplicate R.C, excess amount Rs.5,800/- was remitted. The Opposite Party in contrary not appeared and was not ready to make any contentions on the impediments to refund the amount accepted. The documents produced itself shows that the remittance of tax was done in excess of Rs.5,800/- for the period from 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2006. In the absence of any adverse inferences for the opposite Party we have to rely upon the averment of the Complainant in affidavit. According to the Complainant the application was given to the Opposite Party for the refund of the amount remitted on 25.9.2008.

In the light of the discussion above we are in the opinion that the Opposite Party collected excess tax amount from the Complainant which is refundable. The Opposite Parties are directed to refund the Complainant Rs.5,800/- (Rupees Five thousand Eight hundred only) collected in excess towards the vehicle No. KL 12-8190 during the period from 1.10.2002 to 30.9.2006 within one month from the date of this order. There is no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of the Tax Receipt.

A2. Receipt. dt: 17.01.2006

A3. Certificate of Registration. dt: 27.11.1996

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.