STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

The Registering and Licensing Authority, Sector 17, Chandigarh  through its authorized signatory                                                                                                                                                                  … Appellant

V E R S U S

1. Punit Bansal S/o late Sh. Bal Krishan Bansal, SCF-90, Grain  Market, Chandigarh 160026.
2. M/s Krishan  Auto Audi Gurugram , Trilium Avenue, Sector-29, Plot No. MLP-1 South City, Gurgram  

                                                                         ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 02.11.2023 passed by       District       Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.647/2021.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Rajinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the appellant.

                         Sh.Vaneet Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1

                         Sh.Jagvir Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.11.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed  the complaint, in the following manner;

“In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹94,240/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum  w.e.f. 17.3.2020 when the aforesaid  amount was received from complainant and vehicle was registered by OP No.1 till onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.

2.       Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent No.1  that   on 30.12.2019 the complainant had purchased Audi brand car   from OP No.2/Respondent No.2 for sale  consideration of Rs.62,94,320/- vide invoice Annexure P-1.  Thereafter the complainant applied for the registration of the said car  with OP No.1/appellant ,  by submitting the requisite form Annexure P-2 required for registration and accordingly he was asked  to deposit an amount of Rs.4,28,934/-  as registration fees.  After verifying  the said fee of registration, the complainant was shocked to see that the OP No.1 had  included the discounted  amount of Rs.11,78,000/-   for calculating the registration fee.  The basic cost of the car in question  was Rs.41,54,667/-  whereas the OP No.1 had calculated the registration fee on the   price of Rs.53,32,667/-. The complainant  approached OP No.1/appellant  and brought the said fact to its notice but  OP No.1 did not care to redress the grievance of the complainant and had charged an additional registration fee of Rs.94,240/-  on the amount  of Rs.53,32,667/-  by including discounted amount  of Rs.11,78,000/-. The complainant through  notice Annexure P-6  also requested OP NO.1 to  refund the aforesaid amount but  all went in vain.  Alleging deficiency  in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission. 

3.                    Pursuant to issuance of notice, OP No.1 appeared before the Ld. Lower Commission and contested the complaint by filing  its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability. It was stated that   the   registration fee  was rightly charged as per notification Annexure R-1 and a lump sum one time road tax  was required to be charged on the actual price of the vehicle as given by the manufacturer  exclusive of VAT and other taxes  and not on the discounted price. On merits, it was admitted that tax was charged on the actual price of the vehicle as given by the manufacturer including discounted amount and no excess road tax or fees have been charged from the complainant as the road tax and other fee were correctly charged according to the notification and clarification issued by the Transport Department, Chandigarh Administration.  A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

                    OP No.2  did not turn up before the learned lower  Commission despite  service and  was proceeded against ex-parte..

 4.                  On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the parties, Ld. Lower Commission  allowed the complaint partly, as indicated above. 

5.               Aggrieved against  the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal  has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1  for setting aside the impugned order.

6.                 We have heard  the Govt. Pleader on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.1 & respondent No.2  and   have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 7.            The main contention of the Ld. Govt. Pleader is that the learned Lower Commission has not considered the notifications dated 1.4.2013 and 21.1.2015 issued by the Chandigarh Administration in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,1924, as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh as well as in exercise of powers conferred by Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganization Act,1966 and the Centre Govt. extended the application of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act,2000 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh in accordance with the statue and powers to impose tax in lump sum. It is further contended that the Ld. Lower Commission did not consider that there was no such notification issued by the State of Telangana and wrongly based on the order passed in Kishore Rai Sohni Vs the State of Telangana –Writ Petition No.5286 of 2018 decided on 2.5.2018, wherein only a memorandum dated 02.09.2003 was issued instructing registering authorities to check that there was no loss of revenue for the registering authorities. He further argued that fixation of fares or issue directions about State Carriage  under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is the function of statutory State Transport Corporation. In support of his contention, he referred to a  judgment of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs B.G.Sarang 1995(3) CPJ 40, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission observed that the correctness or otherwise of the fares fixed by the Government or State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority in exercise of its statutory powers cannot be questioned under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant contended that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is quite just and proper and does not call for any interference. 

8.               After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the record, we are of the opinion that there is force in the contention of the ld. Govt. Pleader that as per notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration  one time road tax is to be charged on the actual price of the vehicle as given by the manufacturer and not on the discounted price. The Clarification given vide letter  bearing No.HIII(7)-2015/1894 dated 21/1/2015 issued by the Chandigarh Administration, Transport Department to the Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T. Chandigarh, reads as under ;

Annexure R-1 is the notification dated 1.4.2013 whereby Chandigarh Administration has notified the tax slabs for two wheelers and four wheelers. Vide Annexure R-2 letter dated 21.1.2015 it  clarified that lump sum one time road tax is to be charged on the actual price of the vehicle as given by the Manufacturer excluding VAT and other taxes and not on the discounted price. In the present case, admittedly price of the car was Rs.53,32,667/- whereas the dealer has charged Rs.41,54,667/- by giving discount of Rs.11,78,000/-.  In view of the notification Annexure R-1 and clarification given in letter Annexure R-2, referred to above, the appellant has rightly charged Rs.4,28,934/- by including the discounted price of the car.  Thus, the order passed by the Ld. District Commission warrants interference of this Commission.                  

9.                     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is   accepted and the impugned order is set aside and consequently the complaint stands dismissed.   

10.                 As a result, pending interlocutory application(s) also stands disposed of.  

11.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

12.                     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.