JUDGEMENT
( Passed this on 17th April, 2018)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President
01. This is a complaint of deficiency in service and unfair trade practise against Regional Transport Office (RTO), car dealer and car manufacturer in respect of payment of taxes.
02. The complainant purchased ¨Chevrolet Captiva¨ car, manufactured by the O.P.3, from the O.P.2 on 19/3/2009. He paid all amount including taxes and other charges as demanded by the O.P.2. It was registered by the O.P.1 as MH-31-CS-2629. Neither the O.P.3 nor the O.P.2 at any point of time declared the said car as imported car nor told him that any difference of tax would be required to be paid. The O.P.2 gave quotation containing on road price of the car. He paid all taxes through O.P.2. The O.P.1 after verification of make of the car , billing and other papers collected the amount toward taxes and registered it. The complainant did not declare the make, price, etc of the car. On 14/8/2011 the complainant received a letter from the OP1 that he would be required to pay one time tax @ 14% instead of 7% and he was called upon to pay difference amount of tax Rs. 1,32,289/- with 2% interest on his car. He gave suitable explanation to the O.P.1. Later he came to know from newspaper article that the O.P.1 issued notices to the complainant and other owners of imported cars who are labelled as defaulters and who had purchased Chevrolet Captiva cars from the O.P.2. The said cars were imported but were registered an Indian made and therefore the O.P.1 recalculated road tax and issued show cause notice. It was also mentioned the O.P.1 would be seizing those cars. The show cause notice was appropriately replied.
03. Despite notice reply the officials of O.P.1 visited the residence of the complainant in his absence expressing their intention to seize the car. Such act of the O.P.1 was totally illegal and improper. However, he paid the difference in tax amount Rs. 2,64,578/- to the OP1 under protest, though he was not liable to pay any amount. Alleging unfair trade practise of the OPs, it is prayed to direct the OPs to pay damages of Rs. 8,00,000/- and any other reliefs to him.
04. The O.P.1 filed reply stating therein that the complainant has alternative statutory remedy available under the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act against demand of tax by way of an appeal. Hence, this complaint is said to be not tenable. The complainant is not a consumer of this O.P. as it is not providing him any service. It is stated the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act is provided for levy of tax on all motor vehicles at such rate as fixed by the State Government. Tax has to be paid in advance by every registered owner. Thus Taxation Authority is empowered to recover tax and interest. The car of the complainant was registered as per the form submitted by him. However, while giving declaration, the fact of imported car was concealed by him. As per declaration given by him, taxes of Rs. 1,32,289/- were recovered from him as owner of Indian made car, whereas the said car is imported car. Therefore he is liable to pay tax @ 14% from the date of registration with interest. The demand issued was legal and according to provisions of law. The OP1 has power to seize and detain vehicle in case of non payment of tax. In this view of the matter, it is submitted the complaint be dismissed.
05. The OP1 filed written reply and has admitted purchase of the car from its showroom by the complainant. It is stated it was for the manufacturing company to reveal details of the make of the vehicle and invoices, which were delivered to it. Believing upon the same, it forwarded to RTO for registering the car. The liability to pay tax is of the purchaser. There was no intention to to make more money by deceiving customers. This OP himself has paid difference in tax under protest on his vehicle of the same make. Even this OP was not aware about the said car and its make as invoices given to it by the OP2 did not reveal the same. Therefore this OP cannot be held responsible as he equally has suffered. Denying all other averments for want of knowledge, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
06. The OP3 filed reply and stated the car in question was not manufactured in India, but imported from South Korea. The OP1 is not its dealer or agent, but it acts on principal to principal basis. All vehicles that are sold to OP1 by this OP have their manufacturer stated and declared in accordance with statutory provisions. Taxes payable are advised by the OP1 in consultation with RTO and not by this OP. The said car already carries a chassis no, the first two digits of which declare the country of manufacturer. This OP has not given incorrect advise as to tax to the complainant. The duty to get a vehicle registered is of the purchaser and not of the OP1. Hence it is for the complainant to get ascertained the amount of taxes required to be paid. This OP by chassis number has declared the make of the car. Denying any liability and deficiency in service or unfair trade practise, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
07. Heard the counsel for the complainant and OP1 and 3. None appeared for the OP2. Perused documents. We record our findings with reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
08. The main grievance of the complainant is that the action of the OP1 asking for difference amount of tax as per demand letter is absolutely illegal and improper. It is not in dispute the car was imported from South Korea and as per the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, tax on imported vehicles is double the amount of tax payable on Indian made vehicle.
09. RTO assesses tax on different types of vehicles and owner is required to pay the tax accordingly. Generally it is the dealer of vehicles, who fill in the registration form and advises the owner how much tax is to be paid. In this case the OPs are blaming the complainant that he did not disclose the make of his car while filling registration form and therefore it was registered as Indian made car and accordingly tax was assessed and paid. Subsequently it was revealed that the car was imported and therefore additional tax was assessed and demanded from him. This has been challenged in this complaint.
10. Before considering the liability of paying additional tax, it is to be noted that the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Ford India Ltd v/s St. Of Mah & Othrs, W.P. No. 1729/2003 Dated 11/2/2011 has held that there could not be classification between imported and Indian made vehicles for the purpose of imposing tax. In that petition the provisions of Section 3 (1D) (c) (ii) of the Bombay M.V. Tax Act, 1958 were challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because there is no justification for classifying vehicles on the basis of the country in which they are made for the purpose of imposing the vehicle tax. Allowing the petition, the RTO was directed to refund the amount of tax recovered in excess from the petitioner.
11. The counsel for the complainant, relying on this judgment, has urged to consider the prayer of the complainant. However, it may also be noted that the RTO in its reply stated that the above referred decision of the Bombay High Court has been challenged in Supreme Court and stay has been granted, though no copy of stay order is placed on record. But the fact is that still imported vehicle is charged with twice the amount of tax. Payment of road tax on vehicle is statutory liability. Therefore, it is wrong to say that demand of tax by RTO is illegal. Additional tax paid by the complainant, therefore, cannot be directed to be refunded to him. However, he is entitled to claim compensation for mental agony which he had to undergo for no fault of him,
that too from other OPs. RTO is not at fault for demanding additional tax on imported vehicle. It has acted as per legal provisions and powers vested in it.
12. Some other aspects of the case may also be examined. It is submitted that every vehicle comes with chassis number and first two digits of that number represent country of manufacturer of that vehicle. In the present case as per the chassis number the said car was made in South Korea and this is not in dispute. Here, we fail to comprehend how could the RTO fail to notice the chassis number when it was brought to it for registration. Even from the papers of the car it could easily have noticed that the car was imported one and accordingly tax should have been assessed. We do not accept that the complainant was at fault in this respect for he left the column ¨make of the car¨ blank. It is general experience that the dealer of vehicle fills in forms, because a purchaser is not expected to know what is the tax and other charges. All this information is provided by the dealer. Though we agree that liability to pay tax is of the purchaser, but responsibility to apprise him of amount of tax to be paid is of the dealer. The tax invoice was given by the O.P.1 and amount of tax payable is mentioned therein. It was accordingly paid. As a matter of fact, it was for the OP1 to clarify who filled in the registration form and who was at fault in leaving the column of ¨make¨ blank.
13. One order in WP No. 1931/2013 Hasan Khuzema Shafiq v/s St. of Mah. Dated 3/9/2013 it has been observed that there is alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Bombay M.V. Tax Act, 1958 against assessment of tax by the RTO. On that ground the petition of challenging the assessment of tax was disposed of. So, in view of this order the RTO had sought to get the complaint dismissed. The provisions of the C.P. Act are in addition to any other law, therefore, consumer complaint is maintainable.
14. In not giving clear invoice of the car by the OP3 to the OP2, even the OP3 is also responsible for the harassment suffered by the complainant. It is the duty of the manufacturer to quote correctly the price of car including country of manufacturer. The invoice of the car was therefore not correct and so tax was wrongly assessed. In our opinion, the OPs 2 and 3 are liable to pay damages.
15. In the result, we allow the complaint. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed against the OP 2 and 3
2. The Opposite Parties No.- 2 and 3 are directed to pay, jointly and severally, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (In words Rupees One Lac only) for mental agony and litigation cost Rs. 5000/- (In words Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.
3. The order shall be complied by Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 within 45 days from receipt of order.
4. The complaint is dismissed against the O.P.1, R.T.O. Nagpur.
5. Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
