J U D G E M E N T.

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

Complainant Bishwajit Pattnaik has filed this case U/s 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment against the Ops for registering one tractor and trolley in his name without his knowledge and praying therein for a direction to the OP No.1 & 2 to pay the arrear tax of the vehicle and payment of cost and compensation of Rs.92,900/- in to.

1.           Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant received one demand notice from R.T.O, Bargarh i.e. OP No.3 for payment of arrear tax to the tune of Rs.58725/- respect of tractor and trolley bearing registration No.OR-17-E-7215 and OR-17-E-7216  respectively. Again on 13.11.2016 he received another notice wherein he was asked to pay Rs.72,900/- towards arrear tax or else to start legal proceedings against him to recover the arrear dues under the provisions of the OPDR Act. He was simply surprised to receive the notice as he is not  the owner of any tractor and trolley. After receiving the notices he obtained information under the provisions of the RTI Act and come to know that his name is there in the official records as the registered owner. It is pleaded that he is not the owner of any vehicle as alleged and the OP No.1 & 2 have entered  his name as the registered owner fraudulently  and the OP No.3 in connivance with OP No.1 & 2 have put him to unnecessary harassment for  which he filed this case before this commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2.           After receipt of notice all the Ops entered appearance and filed their written versions.
3.           The OP No.1  in his written version stated that they have not at all advanced any loan in respect of the said tractor and trolley and the complainant is a stranger to him. When he has no nexus with the complainant the case against him is without any cause of action.
4.           The OP No.2 in his written version has stated that the complainant has purchased the tractor and trolley from him with loan assistance from OP No.1 i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra on 29.10.2007. Subsequently the complainant has filled up Form No.29 before RTO, Bargarh and accordingly the Tractor and Trolley has been transferred to the name of Hari Prasad Pattnaik  S/o Ramesh Pattnaik , ward No.10 of Bargarh. The application for transfer of ownership was made on 3^rd May 2016. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and it is only intended to escape from the liability  fixed on him. Therefore he prays for dismissal of the case with costs.
5.           The complainant in support of his case has filed the copy of the demand notice vide TR case No.1629/2015 of RTO, Bargarh, demand notice 13.11.2016 in TR case No.1856/2016 and copy of the registration certificate of tractor and trolley No. OR-17-E-7215 & OR-17-E-7216.
6.           The OP No.1 in support of his case has not filed any document.
7.           The OP No.2 has filed copy of the sale certification in Form-21, copy of the registration certificate of tractor No.OR-17-E-7215, copy of the application in Form -29 & 30 & copy of initial certificate of road worthiness. 
8.           The OP No.3 in support of his case has filed the copy of the registration case record, copy of the application for registration in Form-20, copy of the money receipt 960686 dt.29.x.07, copy of the D.L of Bishwajit Pattnaik, copy of the tax receipt no.495082 dt.29.x.2007, copy of the Form-21 & 22, copy of the cover note of insurance for the period from 29.x.07 to 28.x.08, copy of the order sheet in TR case No.1856/2016 & 1629/2015.
9.           None of the parties have adduced any oral evidence.
10.           The only point for adjudication in this case is whether the complainant is the actual owner of the tractor bearing registration No.OR 17-E-7215.

It is seen from the sale certificate issued by the dealer M/s. Indravati Motors in Form 21 that the vehicle has been delivered to Bishwajit Pattnaik but in the coloum meant for the signature of the customer one Suresh Chandra Pattnaik has put his signature instead of Bishwajit Pattnaik. Similarly in Form 20 the same Suresh Chandra Pattanaik has made the application for registration of the vehicle and in the space meant for specimen signature of the complainant Suresh Chandra Pattanaik has made three signature in the copy of Form 20.

11.           There is nothing on record to show that the said Suresh Chandra Pattanik is the P.A.Holder of Bishwajit Pattnaik or how he is connected with him and by what authority he has signed all the documents. It is crystal clear from the documents on record that in the place meant for the specimen signature of the owner Suresh Chandra Pattnaik has put his signature not the complainant. We are astonished as to how the OP No.3 registered the vehicle in the name of Bishwajit Pattnaik when he has not signed in Form 21 & Form 20. It is clear that the OP No.3 has registered the vehicle in the name of the complainant without following due procedure of law and has acted in a illegal, arbitrary and whimsical manner resulting in giving rise litigation in the court of law and harassment to a citizen who is no way connected with the purchase of the tractor.
12.           The role of OP No.2 is very doubtful. In his written version OP No.2 says that (a) the tractor has been financial by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services (para-2)  (b)

13.           It is seen from the certified copies of the vehicle records filed by RTO, Bargarh the vehicle stands recorded in the name of the complainant as an 31.01.2017. The OP No.2 has himself filed this document and has relied on that document. So the pleading of OP No.2 is not correct in this aspect and the OP No.2 is silent on this point. So far as finance of the vehicle by OP No.1 is concerned he has already denied this aspect. The OP No.2 is the dealer of Swaraj Tractors. His sole business is to sell tractors. He has not explained anything as to how he came to know about resale of the vehicle when the RTO is ignorant about the matter. So the role of OP No.2 is very much suspicious and he has attempted to mislead the Commission through concocted stories.
14.           From  the discussions made in the proceeding paragraphs it is clear that there is no evidence on record to establish that the complainant is the owner of Tractor No. OR-17-E-7215 and the OP No.3 by issuing demand notice on him has caused deficiency in service to him and hence the order.

O R D E R

The Complaint petition is allowed on contest against the OP No.3 and dismissed against OP No.1 & 2. The OP No.3 is directed not to claim any dues from the complainant in relation to Tractor No. OR-17-E-7251 & trolley No.OR-17-E-7216 and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-( Rupees Twenty five  thousand) only  and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) only   towards cost of  litigation .