Regional Transport Officer vs THIRU VRS DAYANIDHI

THE opposite party Regional Transport Officer against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. THE case of the complainant appears to be that he has paid Motor Vehicles Tax for 2 quarters amounting to Rs. 2,090/-. But during the relevant time since the vehicle had met with an accident it was lying idle in the garage. THErefore he was not liable to pay the said tax. Hence he is entitled to refund of the amount. But when it was asked for, the opposite party has not paid that. .On these grounds the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended inter-alia that the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant has not complied with certain formalities and therefore the refund could not be made. The District Forum has found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. However, still holding that the opposite party is liable to refund the amount, passed an award directing the opposite party to pay that amount.

Now in the appeal, it is contended that the complaint was not maintainable since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. We agree. In this case, there is no question of hiring or availing of any services of the opposite party on payment of any consideration by the complainant. This being the case, no question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act arises. The complainant can have remedy elsewhere but not in a Consumer Forum. Therefore the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained as correct.

IN this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed; the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.