| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 380 of 11.9.2019 Decided on: 1.4.2021 Sh.Kirpal Singh son of Sh.Uttam Singh aged about 66 years, R/o House No.316, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Rajpura, District Patiala, Punjab. …………...Complainant Versus - The Regional Transport Authority,(RTA), D-Block, Mini Secretariat, Patiala.
- The Pr. Secretary, Department of Transport, Punjab Government, Chandigarh.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Jasjit Singh, counsel for complainant. None for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Kirpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Regional Transport Authority, Patiala and anr. (here-in-after referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he purchased an old car Santro XP Model,2004 from one Santokh Singh Kalra R/o # 2183,Sector 44-C, Chandigarh in the year 2012 and the complainant got the same transferred in his name from the District Transport Officer, Patiala vide entry No.5262 dated 24.7.2012.The RC was issued on 17.6.2004 bearing No.CH03P5808 valid upto 16.6.2019.
- It is averred that complainant applied for extension of registration and in the month of April,2019 he got assessed the tax/fees for the transfer of ownership, smart card and new registration from the office of RTA, Patiala who wrongly assessed the value of Santro XP, Model 2004 car as Rs.9,00,000/- and charged the heavy amount of MV tax (life time) of Rs.23400/- whereas showroom value of the car in the year 2004 was about Rs.3.30lakh.It is also averred that the complainant got insured the car in question on 16.11.2018 from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. who assessed the value of car as Rs.50,000/-.Accordingly as per the value of car MV tax could be near about Rs.3400/- but OP No.1 charged Rs.20,000/- more.
- It is further averred that he also deposited Rs.200/- for Smart Card of RC and the same had been deliberately issued for four years instead of five years i.e. upto 16.6.2004.The complainant made several requests for the refund of the excess amount and also for re-issuing the smart card but all in vain.There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to refund Rs.20,000/- alongwith interest ; to issue new Smart Card of RC with correct dates and also to pay Rs.25000/- as compensation for causing harassment alongwith costs of litigation.
Written Statement/Reply - Upon notice OPs appeared through Sh.Charanjeet Taneja, Clerk and contested the complaint by filing written statement. In the written reply, it is submitted that mistakenly and by oversight the value of the car of 2004 model make Santro XP was assessed at Rs.9lakhs and the complainant made to deposit MVT in lump sum of Rs.23400/- against the actual due amount of Rs.7800/- and an amount of Rs.15600/- was got deposited in excess and the case for the refund of the said amount has been moved to the Deputy Controller, vide office letter No.8284/SO dated 24.10.2019 for necessary approval and as soon as the same is received the said amount shall be refunded to the complainant and also the rectification on the RC of the car in question shall be done free of costs as and when the complainant visited to the office of OPs on any working day and have prayed that the complaint may be disposed off.
-
- In support of the complaint the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C9 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand despite giving ample opportunities, no evidence has been led by the OPs and the same was closed vide order dated 5.2.2020.
-
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the value of the old car make Santro, model 2004 was assessed wrongly by the OPs and they have charged heavy amount of MV tax and the same be got refunded.
- In the written reply filed by the OPs, it is clearly admitted that by mistakenly and oversight the value of car was assessed wrongly as a result of which Rs.23400/- was charged and Rs.15600/- was got deposited in excess and that the case has been moved to the Deputy Controller, Office of STC, Punjab, Chanbdigarh. So it has been clearly admitted by the OPs that Rs.15600/- has been charged in excess from Sh.Kirpal Singh but the said amount has not been refunded so far.
- So the complaint is allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.15600/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2000/-as compensation and Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:1.4.2021 Y.S.Matta Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member Member President | |
