Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/242

Harimohan S.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deedi Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

19 Jan 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN             : PRESIDENT

                         SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR     : MEMBER

                          SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

CC.NO.242/2014 (Filed on : 25.06.2014)

ORDER DATED :19.01.2022)

COMPLAINANT

          Harimohan.S.S

          TC.27/798-1, Sai Darshan,

          Rishimangalam, Vanchiyoor.P.O

          Thiruvananthapuram – 35

          (By Adv.T.L.Sreeram & Adv.A.S.Deepu)

 

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Deedi Automobiles,

Authorised Dealers for Bajaj Auto Ltd,

Kaimanam Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram – 40

 

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

Kerala Motor Vehicle Department,

Transport Bhavan, Fort.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 23

 

3. Kerala Motor Vehicle Department Transport Bhavan,

Fort.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 23

Rep.by Regional Transport Officer

 

                   (OP1 by Adv.Ajith.S.Nair)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  : MEMBER

               1. The complainant, on 02.06.1999, paid an amount of Rs.45,388/- (Rupees forty five thousand three hundred and eighty eight only) towards the total cost of brand new Bajaj Caliber Motor Cycle to the first opposite party who is the authorised dealer of Bajaj Auto Ltd. The amount includes all charges towards insurance, road tax and other handling charges. The one time road tax for the said vehicle was Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) dated 03.07.1999 that the amount of Rs.2000/- was also collected from the complainant since the cost of the vehicle as the bill was Rs.42,388/- only. The engine number of the vehicle is DDMBFC-01028 and its chassis number is DDFBFC-32472. Further the Registration Certificate of the vehicle bears the endorsement regarding the payment of Rs.2000/- towards onetime tax. After the completion of 15 years the vehicle is due for re-registration in the month of July, 2014 and as such the complainant approached the second opposite party for necessary action. Then, to utter surprise, it was informed by the second opposite party that the complainant had to failed to remit Rs.2000/- towards one time road tax at the time of registration of the vehicle in the year, 1999 and as a result he had to pay Rs.2000/- with interest as well as penal interest amounting to a total of Rs.4900/-. The complainant tried to convince the second opposite party by narrating the real facts with supporting documents but the same fell in to deaf ears. As per the registration details provided in the official website of the third opposite party pertaining to the vehicle clearly shows the remittance of Rs.2000/- towards road tax.  The aspect clearly tallies with the details of tax to be paid for the vehicle, as provided in the official website. But ignoring the same the second opposite party is insisting for the payment for re-registering the vehicle. The aforementioned acts of the opposite parties 2 & 3 in demanding the afore detailed amount for registration amounts to deficiency in service. Further the first opposite party in not providing proper tax receipt evidencing payment of tax in spite of the facts of receipt of amount towards it tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  The complainant is subjected to severe mental agony and hardship as a result of the afore detailed deficiency in service and short coming on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.

2.       Version filed by the first opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The complainant is making allegation with respect to a matter transpired during the year, 1999. Therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed inlimine. The practice during 1999 is payment of road tax by the customer directly and the opposite party used to collect only the price of the vehicle and the insurance charges. On verification of the vehicle details from the website of the Motor Vehicles Department, the opposite party noticed that the tax amount was paid on 03.07.1999. As stated above registration details of the vehicle shows payment of road tax. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not subjected to any mental agony or hardship by the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any other relief claimed by him as against the opposite party.

                      3.   Opposite parties 2 & 3 filed version stating the following contentions. The Bajaj Caliber Motor Cycle registered at Regional Transport Office (NS) Thiruvananthapuram on 03.07.1999 with Registration Mark KL-01/Q 532, in the name and address of the petitioner. Tax endorsement issued in page 7 of RC book on 04.07.1999, stating that on time tax Rs.2000/- is payable with effect from 03.07.1999 at any Regional Transport Office / Sub Regional Transport Office in Kerala. Details of payment of tax in format B as per Circular No.11/98 of Transport Commissioner is not seen anywhere in RC book. Registration validity of the vehicle KL -01/Q 532 expired on 02.07.2014. It is true that the petitioner approached the office of the second opposite party and was informed that tax for the vehicle is not paid so far from the date of registration. Hence he is liable to remit tax upto 30.06..2019 as per Kerala Finance Bill 2014. There is no surprise in this information since petitioner himself admitted that no receipt evidencing tax remittance was with him. The road tax in respect of the vehicles are being collected in the name of vehicle owner with Registration number. No dealer is authorised to collect road tax. The petitioner for his convenience authorise the dealer to remit road tax in his name. Since the amount was not at all credited to the government account petitioner is fully responsible for the non-remittance of tax in respect of the vehicle owned by him. The registration details of the vehicle KL-01/Q 532 provided in the official website of Motor Vehicles Department is entered by the Kudumbasree personal during the computerization of the department. It is clearly noted in the website that “this is a backlogged data and may have errors and omissions. Whenever a vehicle owner approached with original documents for any service such as transfer of ownership, change of address, registration certificate renewal etc the backlog will be corrected in accordance with original RC and B Register.  There is no entry of tax remittance in B Register. It is the duty of the petitioner to collect Tax License from the person to whom the authorised to remit tax and to confirm the details noted in the Registration Certificate. The petitioner failed to produce the tax license. He is fully aware of his fault of tax evasion. In order to justify himself he raised false arguments of deficiency in service from the part of second and third opposite parties. The dispute is between the dealer and the petitioner. The vehicle tax due to government cannot be ignored on the basis of the bill issued by the dealer. The order was complied by accepting tax and inspecting the vehicle for re-registration on 05.07.2014 itself. Tax in respect of the vehicle from 03.07.99 to 30.06.2014 towards the Government of Kerala is still in arrears from the part of the petitioner. He is liable to pay tax arrears amounting to Rs.2000/-+ interest as per Kerala Finance Bill 2014. The arguments raised by the complainant are not substantial for exempting him from remitting tax due to Government. In the order dated 30.06.2014 in IA.No.131/2014 it is stated that on perusal of copy of RC it is seen that an amount of Rs.2000/- was remitted towards tax on 03.07.1999, which cannot be admitted. One time tax for non transport vehicles is made mandatory with effect from 01.04.1997. Prior to the year 2000, after issuing RC tax had been collected on the basis of tax endorsement issued in the RC. It was noticed during 2000, that so many non transport vehicles were plying without remitting tax after registering the vehicle. Hence circular 9/2000 was issued by Transport Commissioner,   instructing to collect tax on the same day of registration. The vehicle KL-01Q 532 was registered on 03.07.1999 and tax endorsement was given on 04.07.1999. The petitioner is not entitled to get any reliefs claimed in the opposite party. If the petitioner failed to remit the arrear tax the department will be forced to initiate Revenue recovery steps against him as per rules.

                      4.   Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Exts.P1 to P4 marked. Complainant was not cross examined by opposite parties. More over opposite parties not filed chief affidavit and not marked documents from their side.

Issues to be considered are :

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost.

Issues I & II

              5.      The specific case of the complainant is that one time tax has already been remitted by him at the time of purchase of the vehicle. In Ext.P1 the complainant had paid Rs.45,388/- as the total amount in favour of first opposite party. In Ext.P2 shows that the total amount of vehicle including insurance premium is Rs.42, 388/-. In Ext.P4 series shows that tax paid from 3/7/1999 to 30/6/2014 for an amount of Rs.2000/-. No contrary evidence produced by the opposite parties to challenge the claim raised by the complainant. In Ext.P1 the complainant had paid all the amount including one time favour of first opposite party and it is evident from Ext.P1 which is the receipt issued by first opposite party. The difference in the amounts in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 will give a clear picture regarding the false contention of first opposite party. As per the registration details provided in the official website of third opposite party pertaining to the vehicle clearly shows the remittance of Rs.2000/- towards road tax. But ignoring the same second opposite party is insisting for the payment for reregistering the vehicle. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

              In the result, complaint is allowed. We declare that there is no dues towards road tax pertaining to vehicle. No.Kl-01 Q 532 upto 30/06/2014 and direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and pay Rs.2500/- cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of order. As per the order in IA.No.131/2014 directed the second opposite party to accept 900/- only towards tax to be paid with effect from 01/07/2014 to 30/06/2019 to complete the e-registration of the vehicle.

               A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 19th day of January 2022.

                                                                                

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                           

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                     

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/   

 

 

 

 

INDEX

CC.NO.242/2014

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Harimohan.S.S

Exihibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of registration certificate

Ext.P2                   - Copy of receipt dated 24.06.2009

Ext.P3                   - Copy of cash voucher dated 03.07.1999

Ext.P4                   - Detail of tax & back logged data received from the official

                                website of Motor Vehicle Department, Kerala (2 Nos.)

List of witness for the opposite parties        - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite parties                 - NIL

Court Exhibits                                            - NIL

 

                                                                                                        
                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.NO.242/2014

ORDER DATED :19.01.2022