DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO.28 OF 2017
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member .
Sri Brundabati Kanhar, aged - 60 years
W/O: Late Chaitanya Kanhar. At: Penjisahi
PO/PS : Phulbani Town Dist : Kandhamal. ……………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Tax Recovery Officer and
Regional Transport Officer, Kandhamal, Phulbani
2. Tirupati Services Ltd.
84/105, G.T. Road, Kanpur- 208002, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd.
Sambalpur Branch, Odisha, At/PO/Dist: Sambalpur …………………………….. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate and his Associates.
For the OPP. Parties: Self.
Date of Order: 27-03-2018
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that he is a widow since 12-05-2015. On 15-09-2001 her husband late Chaitanya Kanhar had purchased an ambassador car on loan basis in the name of the Complainant. The said vehicle bearing No OR-17-B-4284 was financed by O.P No.2 and the husband of the Complainant was the guarantor. On 21-09-2013 the O.P No.2, the finance Company had seized the said vehicle due to nonpayment of installments and took away the said vehicle without intimating the O.P No. 1 and the M.V.I of Phulbani. After 14 years the Complainant had received a notice from the O.P No.1 to pay the up to date tax including interest and penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,52,798/- from the period from April 2003 to March 2017. Being an illiterate S.T women she does not know the rules and regulations regarding the payment of tax of the said car for which he approached the O.P No.1 to exempt her to pay the above amount but she failed and filed this complaint before this Forum due to her mental agony and for exemption from the payment of tax claimed by O.P No.1 after 14 years.
-2-
The case of the O.P No.1 as per his version is that due to default on payment on M.V tax in respect of vehicle number OR-17-B-4284 Tax Recovery case No.38 of 2017 has been initiated in response to the show cause notice. The Complainant filed an objection petition stating that the vehicle which was owned by the defaulter has been seized due to non- payment of installment money in the year 2003. She could not intimate the fact to the Office due to her illiteracy and ignorance and has prayed for exemption of tax. The Complainant was informed through notice to establish her claim by 07-09-2017 but the Complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble forum. The Further case of the O.P No.1 is that to ply motor vehicle on the road prior payment of M.V Tax is mandatory. So, the Complainant may not be treated as a Consumer under the Tax Recovery Officer and Regional Transport Officer for which the Complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
The O.P No.2 was exparte as he failed to attend this forum and the O.P No.3 was not pressed by the Complainant.
During course of hearing we have heard both the Complainant and the O.P No.1. We have gone through the complaint petition, version filed by the O.P No.1 and the documents filed by the complainant in support of her case. No documents were filed by the O.ps. The main point of consideration is that whether the Complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps and whether any order can be passed for exemption of tax imposed on the Complainant by the O.P No.1 ?
It is admitted fact that the Complainant was the owner of one Ambassador Car bearing registration No. OR-17-B-4284 which was purchased by her Husband in her name on 15-09-2001. It is also admitted that the said vehicle was registered under the Regional Transport Officer, Kandhamal Phulbani, the O.P No.1.Hence the Complainant is a Consumer under the O.P No.1 as per provision of C.P Act, 1986.On verification of the documents filed by the Complainant it is seen that the O.P No.2, the financer of the vehicle had seized the said vehicle on 21-09-2003 including the original Registration certificate, Tax book and the Road permit in original from One chaitanya Kanhar , the husband of the complainant as per inventory list supplied by O.P No.2 to the complainant . It is also seen from the notice of the O.P No.1 that Tax Recovery case bearing no 38/2017 has been initiated by the O.P No.1 against the Complainant. Hence, it is crystal clear that the O.P No.1 never demand any tax regarding the said vehicle from the Complainant between the period from 2003 to 2017 a long gap of 14 years which violates the principle of natural justice. Moreover the said vehicle was hypothecated to the O.P No.2, the financer and the relevant entry of the R.C Book is available with the O.P No.1 but no intimation was given to the O.P No.2 by O.P no.1 regarding the defaulter of heavy amount of the tax. The O.P No.2 is responsible to intimate the O.P No.1 regarding the possession of the vehicle and repossession of the vehicle by him on 21-09-2003. The said vehicle is in clear possession of O.P No.2 since 2003. At present the complaint is not in possession of the vehicle. So the demand of tax from the Complainant is not advisable and also not sustained by law. It is well settled that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is benevolent legislation and the Complainant under this Act is not decided on mere technicalities .Substantial justice has to be ensured to the parties. In this case the Complainant shall be suffered due to mistake of O.P No.1 &2. Hence, she is entitled to get relief as
-3-
prayed for. Accordingly the Complaint is allowed and the tax imposed against the Complainant by the O.P No.1 is exempted. The O.P No.1 is at liberty to demand the tax if any applicable from the O.P No.2, the financer as he is in exclusive possession of the vehicle since last 2003.
With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. The interim order passed by us on 08-12-2017 is hereby vacated. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
