D.O.F:27/10/2018
D.O.O:01/09/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.176/2018
Dated this, the 01st day of September 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Manoj.K
S/o Krishnan
R/at Pallikkara
P.O. Pallikkara : Complainant
(Adv:T.V. Vijayan)
And
The Manager,
Sri Ram Finance Ltd
2nd Floor, 1st Block
Near Bus Stand, Kanhangad : Opposite Party
P.O Kanhangad
(Adv: Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he availed vehicle loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Opposite Party in 2012, for purchase of lorry KL – 06 B 2943 loan became due by default vehicle is surrendered to Opposite Party in 2013, their assurance was that loan is cleared completely but loan clearance certificate is not issued by Opposite Party. The complainant received notice for demand of tax for the period 01-03-2013 till 31/03/2018. The complainant allege deficiency in service in not clearing tax and also damages arising thereof with costs. Notice of demand by RTO, lawyer notice sent. Memo issued by RTO Kanhangad are produced. Prayer in the complaint is for a direction to pay entire arrears in respect of the vehicle by Opposite Party and also compensation and cost of the litigation
2. The Opposite Party appeared and filed their written version allegations in the complaint are denied. It is contended that loan agreement was in 2009, that arbitration proceedings pending and all original papers are with RTO. The RTO demanding tax from the RC Owner Kasaragod. and also submitted that the vehicle is put up for sale and auction purchaser is bound to clear the road tax, finance company is not liable and the complaint may be dismissed. Proposed sale of vehicle is duly informed to complainant and consented for it. According to Opposite Party auction purchaser is bound to pay the taxes and nobody else can to transfer RC of the vehicle.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext A1 to A4 marked.
Ext A1 is the memo dated 07/02/2018 of RTO, Ext A2 is the copy of Registered notice Dated 06/03/2018, Ext A3 is the postal AD card, Ext A4 is the memo dated 12/09/2018 of RTO.
From the side of the Opposite Party, there Branch Manager was examined as DW1.
Point for consideration is :
a) Whether financer is liable to pay motor tax after seizing the vehicle or registered owner?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
3) If so for what reliefs?
It is the case of complainant that he surrendered the vehicle to Opposite Party. The complainant received notice from RTO demanding tax for the period 01/03/2013 till 31/03/2018. He states that he is not liable to pay the tax the period. The Opposite Party submitted that vehicle is put for sale and auction purchaser is bound to clear the road tax. Finance company is not liable to pay road tax.
We have perused a recent judgment of Honourable Supreme Court 2022 live law (SC) 1990 Mahindra and Mahindra financial service Ltd Vs state of Utharpradesh and other . where it is held that “A financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire purchase or release or hypothecation agreement has been entered is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement (para 12)
It is well settled that a financer on seizing financial vehicle and keeps control and possession motor tax is to be paid by finance company. The Opposite Party says that they have seized the vehicle and auctioned. Name of auction purchaser and date of auction is not stated or action taken against auction purchaser to pay tax due is also not available. Even if auctioned liability of financier is not absolved from paying tax due to transport authority. The Complainant is not liable to pay tax arrears. Since finance company admits possession of the vehicle and auction sale during the period when tax is due. Hence we hereby declare that complainant is not liable to pay the tax as per demand made herein to vehicle KL – 06 B 2943 and further direct Opposite Party to pay the road tax due to the vehicle for the period shown on 01/03/2013 till 31/03/2018 . A copy of the order is also communicated to RTO Kanhangad to enable RTO proceed against Opposite Party to collect the road tax aforesaid in case of non – compliance of order.
The vehicle is taken possession by Opposite Party in 2013 , auctioned but not cared to verify whether road tax is due or paid there is service deficincy in service by which complainant suffered great mental tension by receiving the notice of demand and hence Opposite Party liable to pay compensation to complainant . Under the circumstances of the case commission herby holds that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is reasonable amount for compensation and also liable for cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay the tax as per demand made herein to vehicle KL -06- B 2943 for the period of 01/03/2013 till 2018 within one month from date of receipt of order is also communicated to RTO Kanhangad to enable RTO to proceed against Opposite Party to collect the road tax aforesaid case of non-compliance of order. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Memo Dt: 07/02/2018
A2- copy of the registered notice Dt: 06/03/2018
A3- Postal Acknowledgment card
A4- Memo Dt: 12/09/2018
Witness Examined
DW1 - Subhith.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
