IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Thursday,   the 31st  day of August, 2017

Filed on 05.08.2016

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

in

CC/No.254/2016

 Between

Complainant:- Opposite party:-

 

Sri. S.V.Pradeep 1. The Collector

Srambikkal The State of Kerala

Mayithara Market.P.O Collactrate, Alappuzha

Kanjikkuzhi Village

Alappuzha 2. The Deputy Tahasildar

(Adv.C. Parameswaran) Revenue Recovery

Taluk Office, Cherthala

 

  3.        The Village Officer

  Kanjikkuzhi Village Alappuzha

 

                                                                          4. The Motor Transport Officer                                                                          Office of the Regional                Transport Office

                                                                                     Collactrate, Alappuzha

 

O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

The complainant case precisely is as follows:-

The complainant purchased vehicle bearing No. KL-70/7425.  The complainant purchased the said vehicle for the purpose of eking out his livelihood.  The said vehicle however seemed unworthy for road, and the same was being kept idle since 2007.  The said was duly intimated to the 4th opposite party office.  The complainant was under the bonafide belief that the said vehicle would be categorized as dormant whereupon the complainant would be exempted from paying tax any further.  In the mean time the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs. 2,09,306/-.  Upon this the complainant took up the matter the third opposite party, and the complainant was instructed that in the event of registration of G form with the  4th opposite party department the complainant’s alleged liability would be  wiped off.  The complainant with earnest efforts convinced the opposite party all aspects as to the vehicle, and the opposite parties assured the complainant that no further steps against the complainant would be initiated.  Strangely still to the shock and dismay of the complainant, the opposite parties issued another intimidating notice to the complainant threatening recovery proceedings against the complainant. The complainant filed an objection before the opposite party, and prayed for suspend recovery proceedings till an opportunity is afforded to the complainant to explain the complainant’s version with regard to the instant vehicle.  However the opposite party is reluctant to pay heed to the complainant’s legitimate request and is going ahead with the recovery proceedings, the complainants alleges.  The opposite party committed deficiency of services.  The complainant get aggrieved on this, the approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.  

2.  Though the notices were served the opposite parties were not keen on appearing before this Forum to challenge the complainant’s case.  With the result, the opposite parties were set ex-partie.

3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents Ext.A1 series and Ext.A2 were marked.  As have been already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor did contend the complainant’s case.

4.  Taking into account the complainant’s contention the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-

(A) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of services?

(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

 

5. We meticulously went through the complaint and the materials place on record before us by the complainant.  The complainant case is that complainant purchased vehicle bearing No. KL-70/7425.  The complainant purchased the said vehicle for the purpose of eking out his livelihood.  The said vehicle however not seemed roadworthy, and the same was being kept idle since 2007.  The said aspect was duly intimated to the 4th opposite party office.  The complainant was under the bonafide belief that the said vehicle would be categorized as dormant whereupon the complainant would be exempted from paying tax any further.  In the mean time the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs. 2,09,306/-  Upon this the complainant took up the matter with the third opposite party, and the complainant was instructed that in the event of registration of   G form  with the  4th opposite party department the complainant’s alleged liability would be wiped off.  The complainant with earnest efforts convinced the opposite party all aspects as to the vehicle and the opposite parties assured the complainant that no further steps against the complainant would be initiated. Strangely still, to the shock and dismay of the complainant, the opposite parties issued another intimidating notice to the complainant threatening recovery proceedings against the complainant.  The complainant filed an objection before the opposite parties, and prayed for suspending proceedings till an opportunity is afforded to the complainant to explain the complainant’s version with regard to the instant vehicle.  On a perusal of the materials available on record before us, we are persuaded to arrive on a considered conclusion that the complainant case must be probable.  What is more, as we have already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor let in any evidence to challenge the complainant case.  In the context of the complainant’s convincing case and in the premise of not disputing the same by the opposite parties, we are of the strong view that the complainant’s case stands well established and merit acceptance.  It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient.  We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.

6. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, it is hear by declare that the notice issued by the opposite parties demanding an amount of Rs. 2,09,306/- is null and invalid. Needless to say the complainant not liable to pay the material amount.

In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost or compensation.  Order shall be complied with in one month from the date of the receipt of this order. 

 

Pronounced in  Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2017.

            Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)   

Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) 

 

 

 

APPENDIX:-

 

Evidence of  the Complainant:-

Ext.A1 series - Memo  & Demand Notice.

Ext.A2 - Letter dtd. 07-2-2017

 

Evidence of  the opposite party:-  Nil 

 

 

 

 

/True copy//

 

                                                                                                                  By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent

 

To

Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

 

 

Typed by: br/-

Compared by:-