JAGANNATH BAG, MEMBER
31.08.15
The present appeal is directed against the Order dated 30.10.2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah, in Complaint Case No. HDF 25 of 2014 , whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest without cost against the OP.
The Complainant’s case , in brief, was as follows:
The Complainant purchased one i10 Sportz 1.2 BS IV F/L Carbon Grey car from the OP on payment of Rs.5,36,988/-. The said amount was inclusive of price of the car and other charges , such as , insurance fee , registration fee, M.V.Tax etc. The vehicle was delivered on 09.04.2013 . Allegedly, the OP received Rs. 56,530/- as life time Motor Vehicle Tax, but the OP handed over the tax receipt to the Complainant showing that the tax has been paid for the period from 22.04.2013 to 21.04.2018 , i.e., for 5 years. When the Complainant enquired about nonpayment of life time tax , the OP did not give any satisfactory reply. For non-payment of life time tax the Complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,36,988/- as cost of car on road. In the said circumstances a petition of complaint was filed before the Ld. Forum below praying for direction to pay the life time tax to the Motor Vehicles Department or to replace the car by a new car at a total sum of Rs. 6,36,988/- .
The complaint was contested by the OP by filing Written Version denying that the sum of Rs. 56,530/- was received by the OP as life time Motor Vehicle Tax. The tax has been paid for 5 years, i.e., for the period from 22.04.2013 to 21.04.2018 and such payment was made by the OP on the basis of an application of the Complainant. There was no false statement or fraud . The vehicle being a new one and no ground for replacement of the vehicle being furnished , the case was not maintainable against him, also in view of the fact, that neither the manufacturer of the vehicle nor the Motor Vehicles Department has been made party .
Ld. Forum below, having considered the pleadings of both parties and after going through the petition of complaint together with annexure thereto and the W.V. filed by the OP, observed that the OP received Rs. 56,530/- as ‘Logistic and Incidental Charges’ out of which Rs. 25,338/- was paid for 5 years’ tax of the said car . There being nothing to prove that the OP had any deficiency in service, the complaint was decided to be dismissed.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the Ld. Forum below the Complainant-turned-Appellant has come up before this Commission with prayer for direction upon the Respondent /OP to refund the excess amount charged along with compensation and litigation cost amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has been heard , while the Respondent remained absent on the date of hearing in spite of undertaking during first appearance by the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent to file vakalatnama .
Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant submitted that at the time of purchasing the vehicle, the Respondent issued a proforma invoice dated 19.03.2013 wherefrom it is evident that the Respondent charged Rs. 56,530/- as Government levies, i.e, life time road tax, but only a sum of Rs. 25,338/- was paid as road tax for 5 years and thereby adopted an unfair trade practice. Ld. Forum below dismissed the complaint without due consideration of the papers placed before them and without scrutinizing the evidence on record. Ld. Forum below should have directed the OP /Respondent to refund the balance of Rs. 56,530/- minus Rs. 25,338/-, i.e, a sum of Rs. 31,192/- to the Appellant/Complainant , apart from compensation and cost as claimed in the petition of complaint. The case of the Complainant was that the OP committed an unfair trade practice for which appropriate orders should have been passed. The impugned order be set aside , allowing the complaint.
The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the memorandum of appeal together with copies of the impugned order , the petition of complaint with annexure thereto including the proforma invoice issued by the OP , the tax receipt and the W.V. filed by the OP before the Ld. Forum below .
There is no dispute that the Appellant/Complainant purchased a new car from the Respondent /OP. The proforma invoice is seen to have been issued for Rs. 5,36,988/- . Payment of a sum of Rs. 5,26,988/- was made by cheque in addition to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as booking fee on 19.03.13 vide receipt issued by the OP. The vehicle was delivered 09.04.2013. The point of dispute is that though the Appellant/Complainant was told that Rs.56,530/- would have to be deposited as life time motor vehicle tax for the said car, the Motor Vehicle Tax Receipt issued by the Motor Vehicles Department showed that only Rs.25,338/- was actually received by the Motor Vehicles Department for 5 year tax instead of life time tax. The Appellant/Complainant did not get any satisfactory reply as to why life time tax was not paid.
A look at the Proforma Invoice issued by the Respondent/OP shows the breakup of the sum of Rs. 5,36,988/- under following heads:-
Net Ex-showroom price (of the vehicle) Rs. 4,59,954/-
Comprehensive Insurance Rs. 15,504/-
Govt. Levies Rs. 56,530/-
Logistic and Incidental Charges Rs. 3500/-
Accessories Rs. 1500/-
Total Rs. 5,36,988/-
While the document (Proforma Invoice ) placed by the Appellant/Complainant before the Ld. Forum below shows that the sum of Rs. 56,530/- was paid against the item of ‘Govt. Levies’ , Ld. Forum below did a material mistake in treating the said sum as put against ‘Logistic and Incidental Charges’. In their W.V. the Respondent / OP pleaded that the sum of Rs. 56,530/- was not received by them for payment of life time Motor Vehicle Tax, but the fact, on record remains that the said sum was meant for payment of Govt. Levies and not for any other purpose, say , logistic and incidental charges. The term ‘Govt. Levies’ , definitely included the amount of tax to be paid to the Govt. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 25,388/- was deposited under Govt. account as tax. But, for the balance ( Rs. 56,530/- minus Rs. 25,338/- =) of Rs. 31,192/- , neither any clarification / explanation was provided nor any document showing that the same was deposited as a component of Govt. Levies was produced before the Ld. Forum below. In that case the allegation about unfair trade practice by the Respondent/ OP can not be ruled out unless proved otherwise with cogent evidence. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the case may be sent back on remand to the Ld. Forum below for fresh adjudication in the light of the above noted discussion. Hence,
Ordered
That the appeal be and the same is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is sent back on remand for fresh adjudication by the Ld. Forum below after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties who may file fresh evidence, if any. There shall be no order as to cost. Parties to appear before the Ld. Forum below on 23rd September 2015 for necessary order.
