D.O.F:04/01/2019

                                                                                                  D.O.O:10/12/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.03/2019

Dated this, the 10^th   day of December 2020

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                                : MEMBER

1. Safvan K.P

S/o Ahammed K.P

R/at Chalkere House,

Urdur P.O, Pallangod

Kasaragod Taluk and District                                : Complainants

2. Mrs. Nafeesa C.K

W/o Ahammed K.P

R/at Chalkere House,

Urdur P.O, Pallangod

Kasaragod Taluk and District

(Adv: Sadanada Kamath.K & Aysha Thasneema.)                              

                                                                        And    

1. The Chola Mandalam Investment

And Finance Company Ltd.

(Formerly known as Chola Mandalam DBS Finance Limited)

Rep: by its Branch Manager, Kanhangad Branch,

Pranav Aracade, Near Deepa Gold, Kanhangad – 671316

2. The Area Manager,

Chola Mandalam Investment

And Finance Company Ltd.

Tavakkar Building, Kannur.

3. The Area Legal Manager,

Chola Mandalam Investment

And Finance Company Ltd., Kozhikode.

(Adv: Babuchandran.K . OP 1 to 3)

4. The Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O)

Regional Transport Office,

Ground Floor, 2^nd Block, Civil Station,

Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.

5. The Village Officer,

Village Office, Adoor.

6. The state represented by the

District Collector,

Civil Station Building,

Vidyanagar Kasaragod.

                                                            ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

1.      The case of complainant’s is as follows:- That the complainant purchased the vehicle Tata-407-in November 2012. Vehicle is subject to hire purchase finance with opposite party No: 1. His mother complainant No: 2 is guarantor for finance. Its registration number is KL-14M 6555. Finance dues are paid regularly. Disputes are settled as per terms when vehicle loan still due, the vehicle is surrendered. Vehicle is sold by finance company, its proceeds adjusted towards loan account. Balance due is paid by cash. Opposite party issued a letter dated 11/05/2016. At the time of surrender of vehicle, its R.C also entrusted to financer. Though vehicle is sold by financer its R.C still remains in the name of complainant No: 1 notice dated 24/03/2018 is issued for recovery of motor vehicle tax to the tune of Rs.37341/-. He is threatened with R.R proceedings.   Part payment of Rs.10,000/- is made. This fact is in formed to opposite party No.1 to 3 but in vain. Complainants good respect in the family and relation circle suffered shame and ignominy.  So he claimed following reliefs.

1. To direct opposite party No: 1 to 3 to change the ownership of vehicle KL-14M 6555 to the purchaser of vehicle from finance company and to pay the motor vehicle tax there on to opposite party No: 4.
2. To repay Rs.10,660/- paid by complainant on motor vehicle tax to opposite party No:4
3. To pay Rs.5, 00,000/- as compensation.

2.     The Opposite party entered before the forum and filed their written version opposite party No:1 to 3 admitted that complainants availed loan for the vehicle . But denied other allegations. It is their case that vehicle is re-possessed by them. Vehicle is auctioned in public auction in the name of Mr.Haris .A s/o Moidutty, Kunnath house, Shivapuram , Kannur . Auction purchaser issued letter dated 20/11/2014 undertaking to clear arrears of motor tax due and to charge the R.C in his name. But R.C is not handed over to financer by complainants.  The opposite party No:1 to 3 contended that it is the duty of auction purchaser to pay arrears of tax and to effect change of ownership. Opposite party No:1to 3 disowned any liability for the reliefs claimed in the case.

3.         The Opposite party No:4 to 6 filed their written version. Main contention is that consumer complainant is not the remedy and section 72 is a bar and whoever is the R.C owner he is bound to pay the motor tax. R.R proceedings initiated as per the law and not liable for any relief. Opposite party No:4 filed separate version that vehicle tax is in arrears and proceedings initiated as per law against R.C owner.

4.         The Complainants represented that no oral evidence for him. Documents were marked as Ext A1 to A5.   Ext A1 is settlement letter dated 11/05/2016 by opposite party No:1 A2 is the certificate issued by opposite party No:1 A3 letter issued by opposite party No:1 while surrendering the vehicle. A4 demand notice issued by RTO Kasaragod and Ext A5 is receipt of Rs.10600/- issued by Village Officer Adoor. IA 2/2019 to waive section 80 notices is allowed on 04/01/2019.

5. Points for consideration in the case are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency service of opposite party No: 1 to3 in not talking any steps to change ownership in the name of auction purchaser on re-possessing the vehicle and later sold in public auction.
2. Whether opposite party No:1 to 3 are liable to pay motor tax from the date of re-possession.
3. Whether complainants is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

For convenience all the points discussed together and findings recorded.

6.     This is a case of taking possession of the vehicle by opposite party No: 1 to 3 (financer) for the purpose of recovering amount due.  Despite sale of vehicle in public auction, its R.C is not changed in the name of its buyer. Ext A1 and Ext A3 proves that no amount is due by complainant to opposite party No: 1 further opposite party No: 1 to 3 admit that they re-possessed the vehicle and sold it in public auction and it was purchased by one Mr. Haris. When once vehicle is sold seller is expected to intimate the sale of vehicle in the motor vehicle department immediately. No such intimation is given by opposite party No: 1 to 3. Admittedly motor vehicle tax is in arrears. Even as per opposite party No: 1 to 3, they got an undertaking from buyer of vehicle that he will pay the tax arrears and change ownership   of vehicle. Complainants has no connection or privity of contract with buyer of vehicle. Vehicle is re-possessed as per order dated 04/01/2014 and buyer issued undertaking letter on 30/11/2014.   Ext A4 demand notice issued in 2018 after four years of re-possessing the vehicle.

7.     The Opposite party No: 1 to 3 having re-possessed the vehicle in 2014, it is their duty to pay motor tax since them as per law. No specific date of sale by public auction is available. But buyer issued letter of undertaking on 20/11/2014 and notice of demand issued on 21/03/2018 after four year. Vehicle is sold in public auction, its proceeds are appropriated to the account of opposite party No: 1 to 3 and balance due by complainants is also collected but even thereafter motor vehicle tax is arrears and still not paid no intimation of sale is made by opposite party No: 1 to3 to the motor vehicle department, notice is issued by RTO demanding vehicle tax due and when complainants  filed the consumer complaint instead of expressing regrets denying liability and company putting blame on auction purchaser without any solace to the real sufferer who lost their vehicle, paid balance due and cleared the loan though vehicle is in the possession of financer, and served with demand notice under RR act demanding vehicle tax, even after four years of sale R.C still continue in the name of the complainant, there no hesitation to enter in to a finding that there is sheer negligence and serious deficiency service in the service of opposite party No:1 to 3 in the matter.

8.         In usual course balance loan amount is recovered by filing executing petitions  and continued legal battle with the defaulter but in this case, complainant paid balance loan amount in cash to the financer and cleared his liability but he is put to so much of shame and ignominy that he suffered mental tension, agony for no fault on his part, and the consumer has to be compensated adequately for the mental agony ,harassment ,public humiliation emotional suffering, physical, discomfort and financial loss, such type of instant in justice cannot be permitted to a civilized society where there is effective rule of law.

9.     Payment of motor vehicle tax is the top priority and change of ownership is essential to avoid any embarrassment to the original owner namely the complainants here in. The R.C status shows that its registration is blacklisted, tax paid up to 31/01/2014, owner name as Safwan complainant No:1 for black list. So any tax due from 01/04/2014 is payable by opposite party No: 1 to 3 from the date of re-possession of vehicle. After auction   sale tax arrears to be paid either financer or auction purchaser section 2 (30) of M.V.Act defines ‘owner’

We have referred the citations in Narayanan Nair Vs Maviakutty

1. ICCT (S.N. 42) A division Bench NDR Finance Vs State of Kerala (2002) (1) KLT 591 interpreting section 9 of Kerala Motor Vehicle taxation Act held that Financer who is in control of the vehicle is liable to pay the amount due by way of arrears of tax.

10.   Transfer of vehicle to another person without complying with any of the statutory requirements known to law. Under such circumstances, the financer will be liable to pay the motor vehicle tax and such liability cannot be fastened on the complainant. If any amount is paid by opposite party No:1 to 3 it is left open to them to adopt recoveries before the appropriate forum against the purchaser of vehicle if in law he is entitled to a course that the Honourable Supreme Court adopted in      Dr. T V Jose’s case 2001 A.C 2059 (SC)

11.    Since acts of opposite party No:1 to 3  amounts unfair trade practice and there  is serious deficiency in service they are liable to pay compensation to complainant forum is of the opinion that a sum of Rs.50,000 is reasonable amount of compensation payable by opposite party No:1 to 3 to complainant under the circumstance. Complainants is also entitled for cost of the litigation. Furthermore   complainant has already paid Rs.10,666/- when threatened with recovery under R.R Act , opposite party No:1 to 3 is liable to refund it to the complainant No:1

12.    R.C is still in the name of complainant opposite party No:1 to 3 is duty bound to take steps Through buyer to effect change of ownership of vehicle of auction purchaser. Opposite party No: 4 is entitled to take steps against opposite party No:1 to 3 to recover motor vehicle tax in arrears by recourse to law.

13.     In the result complainant is allowed in part. opposite party No:1 to 3 is directed to take immediate steps to change the ownership of vehicle KL-14 M 6555 in the name of the purchaser of vehicle from complainant .No:1 and  pay the motor vehicle tax due thereon to opposite party No:4 as per demand. Opposite party No:4 is at liberty to take steps to recover the tax arrears of vehicle KL-14 M 6555 against  opposite party No:1 to 3 by re course to law. Opposite party No: 1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs. 10666/- as part payment made by complainant No: 1 to village officer towards motor vehicle tax opposite party No: 1 to 3 are also directed to pay       Rs.50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) for cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.

       Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Settlement letter

A2- A letter Dt: 11.05.2016

A3- A letter issued by OP No:1

A4. Demand notice Dt 24/03/2018

A5- Receipt Dt: 30/08/2018

       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/