By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the 2^nd Opposite Party to cancel the proceedings taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party as per F-96/MVT/15-16/VYT, to direct the 2^nd Opposite Party not to take further steps as per F-96/MVT/15-16/VYT, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings also to declare that the Complainant is not liable to pay any tax dues over the vehicle.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant purchased one Tipper Lorry No. KL 12D 6827 from one Kanjayi Moosa for his livelihood for a sum of Rs.6,35,000/-. The Complainant availed vehicle loan from Sreeram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Sulthan Bathery. The Financier collected the original RC from the Complainant promising that the ownership of the vehicle will be transferred in the name of Complainant. But the Financier had not taken any steps to change the RC and the Complainant could not ply the vehicle. The Complainant filed case CC 120/2013 before this Forum and the case is partly allowed by the forum. Now the case is pending in appeal Court. In CC 120/2013, the Opposite Party submitted before the Forum that the Regional Transport Officer Wayanad had transferred the ownership of the vehicle in the name of Complainant on 14.06.2013. But the 1^st Opposite Party herein had not informed the Complainant about the transfer of RC in his name either orally or documentary. Without giving any intimation, now the Opposite Party is taking steps to recover the tax due from the Complainant for that period. It is a deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and 1^st Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 2^nd Opposite Party not appeared and thus 2^nd Opposite Party is set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, 1^st Opposite Party stated that the ownership of the vehicle KL 12D 6827 Tipper Lorry was transferred in the name of Complainant on 20.07.2013 as per the application of Complainant dated 29.06.2013. The Complainant not filed G form in the office if the vehicle is not able to ply. The Complainant not approached the Opposite Parties to pay the tax but only applied for evasion of tax. The 1^st Opposite Party send demand notice to pay the tax over the vehicle for the period 01.07.2013 to 31.12.2014. The notice issued by the Opposite Party is received by the complainant but so far not paid the tax. Hence revenue recovery proceedings are taken against the Complainant. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party.

4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The produced documents as per the order of the Forum by the Opposite Party is marked as Ext.X1. The 1^st Opposite Party not adduced any oral evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of demand notice issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant. Ext.A2 is the also the part of Ext.A1 demand notice. Ext.A3 is the copy of application filed by the Complainant to 1^st Opposite Party requesting 1^st Opposite Party to receive the tax from the Complainant over the vehicle so as to enable him to ply the vehicle and intimating the 1^st Opposite Party that so far the RC is not transferred in his name. Ext.X1 documents shows the steps taken by the 1^st Opposite Party to collect tax from the Complainant ie the calculation of tax, memo issued to the Complainant for paying tax, acknowledgment card showing that the Complainant had received the demand notice from the 1^st Opposite Party, request of Complainant to receive tax etc. Ext.A4 document is the copy of order in CC 120/2013 filed by the Complainant against the financier of the vehicle. On verifying the Ext.X1 documents, it is seen that on 03.09.2013, the Complainant submitted an application to the 1^st Opposite Party requesting for a permission to receive tax from him so as to enable him to ply the vehicle and informing the 1^st Opposite Party that the RC of the vehicle is not so far transferred in his name. It is seen that the 1^st Opposite Party had not taken any action on the application. The 1^st Opposite Party had not produced any document to show that the 1^st Opposite Party had informed the Complainant about the transfer of ownership of the vehicle either orally or documentary. The Complainant was ready and willing to pay the tax over the vehicle right from the beginning. But the 1^st Opposite Party had not intimated the Complainant about the transfer of ownership. It is up to the 1^st Opposite Party to prove that the 1^st Opposite Party had intimated the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of Complainant to the Complainant. The case of 1^st Opposite Party is that the 1^st Opposite Party had transferred the ownership of the vehicle on 20.07.2013 itself in the name of Complainant. The Complainant filed application on 03.09.2013 to receive tax from him and intimating the 1^st Opposite Party that the ownership of the vehicle is not so far transferred in his name. On getting such an application from the Complainant even after transferring the ownership, the 1^st Opposite Party should have informed the Complainant regarding the transfer of ownership in black and white. But it is seen that no steps taken by the 1^st Opposite Party. The Forum is of the opinion that it is a clear latches and negligence from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite party had send demand notice in the year 2015. So the demand of the tax during the period 01.07.2013 to 31.12. 2014 is absolutely an injustice against the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party should be more vigilant in dealing with these matters. The Complainant is not responsible for the fault of 1^st Opposite party. So the Forum found that the steps taken by the 2^nd Opposite party against the Complainant is not sustainable. The act of 1^st Opposite party is a clear case of deficiency of service from their part. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the Complainant is partly allowed and the steps taken by the 2^nd Opposite Party against the Complainant as per F-96/MVT/15-16/VYT order is not sustainable and 1^st Opposite Party is directed to withdraw the Ext.A1 notice wide No.F-96/MVT/15-16/VYT. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed not to take any future action over the same period tax. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only as cost and compensation to the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4^th day of November 2016.

Date of Filing:16.09.2015.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Notice.

A2. Copy of Notice . dt:28.12.2015.

A3. Copy of complaint. dt:03.09.2013.

A4. Copy of Order. dt:30.06.2014.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties:

X1. Letter. dt:01.10.2016.