The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant was the registered owner of the stage carriage No. KL 12/ 5296. The vehicle had a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- issued by the 1^st Opposite Party. The vehicle was hypothecated to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party. In order to get hypothecation for the vehicle as a security for the loan, the Complainant and three other sureties deposited their title deeds of immovable properties. The terms of hypothecation was as such that the payment to the Opposite Parties are to be made in installments starting from 04.02.1996 and the payment is to be closed on 04.07.2000. Including interest the amount liable to be paid by the Complainant was Rs. 9,00,000/-, Rs. 8,00,000/- were given to the 1^st Opposite Party. On the failure on the part of the Complainant in remitting the payment strictly complying to the payment chart, the 1^st Opposite Party seized and repossessed the vehicle on 14.5.1999 and it was under the custody of the 1^st Opposite Party for 2 years. The price of the vehicle was depreciated considerably due to exposer to light and rain. When the vehicle was seized by the 1^st Opposite Party the seizing of the vehicle was informed to the RTO and RTA properly in 'G' Forms. The 1^st Opposite Party also gave intimation to the Transport Authority.

2. The vehicle was later sold to the highest offerer in auction to the 3^rd Opposite Party for Rs. 2,40,000/-. The 1^st Opposite Party entered into an agreement with the 3^rd Opposite Party and upon which the vehicle handed over to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The entire liabilities were transferred to the 3^rd Opposite Party abide by the agreement of the sale. The 1^st Opposite Party gave form No.35 to the Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad only on 19.9.2000. The liabilities were completed by the 3^rd Opposite Parties and the documents related to the vehicle had to be transferred to the 3^rd Opposite Party and more over the 1^st Opposite Party is responsible (for clearing all the liabilities of the Complainant. As per the records the vehicle was not transferred and it was in possession of the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party as the actual owner. The complainant is not liable to pay the road tax. The 4^th Opposite Party demanded the road tax of Rs.1,34,599/- for a period from 31.3.2002 to 31.3.2003. The Complainant was issued a notice in December 2004 demanding that the immovable properties of the Complainant would be attached. Further it was also informed that property attached would be sold. The 4^th Opposite Party gave an intimation in form No.11 to attach the immovable properties to realise the tax amount which would have to be paid by the complainant. The Complainant is not in any way responsible to pay the tax amount as demanded by the 4^th and 6^th Opposite Party. Meanwhile the 6^th Opposite Party started arbitration proceedings in Uduppi for Rs. 6,25,710/- in the proceedings No.51/2002. The 4^th Opposite Party has to give exemption to the Complainant considering the application given by the 1^st Opposite party and the Complainant. The revenue recovery proceedings are proceeded against the Complainant by the 5^th and 6^th Opposite Parties. There may be an order (1) Directing the 4^th Opposite Party to grant exemption of the road tax of Rs. 1,34,599/-. (2) Directing the Opposite Party not to collect any future tax from the Complainant. (3) The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are to be directed to transfer the permit and other papers concerned to the 3^rd Opposite Party. (4) For the return of all the documents including the title deeds deposited towards collateral security by the Complainant and sureties. The 5^th and 6^th Opposite Parties are to be directed not to sell the attached property in public auction and the Complainant is to be given Rs.50,000/- in the way damages of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party.

3. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:- The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties admitted the hypothecation of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL 12/ 5296. The hired amount was to be paid in 54 monthly installments. The terms and conditions of the the installments were informed by the hirer. The total amount receivable on completion (of period as per agreement is Rs. 9,21,250/- and an over due compensation of 3% per month on the unpaid installments were to be paid by the hirer. The hirer, was a chronic defaulter from the beginning of the transaction and none of the installments were paid in the due date. The installments of several months became due and for the non payment of tax, the Complainant kept the bus hidden in fear of seizing the vehicle. The bus was surrendered on 07.08.2000 to sell the same to the 3^rd Opposite Party at the consideration agreed of Rs.2,40,000/-. The price of the vehicle was credited in to the account of the financier which was also agreed by the Complainant. The balance amount due from the Complainant was agreed to be recovered.

4. The application in form 35 was given by the 1^st Opposite Party to the RTO Wayanad, in order to facilitate the purchase of the vehicle by the 3^rd Opposite Party. Even after crediting the price of the vehicle in to the account of the hirer a huge amount was due from the Complainant. The company has not operated the bus and as a result question of payment of tax by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party does not arise. The company had already handed over form No.35 to release the hire purchase lien entry to make transfer in effect to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party need not be drawn in to the issue of the tax payment and the recovery proceedings in failure of the tax payments. Further it is admitted by the Complainant that the 3^rd Opposite Party is holding the responsibility for all taxes and other transfer charges. The disputes at present stands referred to arbitration proceedings. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties has no role in the recovery proceedings initiated by the 5^th and 6^th Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.

5. The version filed in brief by the 3^rd Opposite Party is as follows:- The 3^rd Opposite Party became the purchaser of the vehicle No. KL 12/ 5296 based on the quotation given to the 1^st Opposite Party at the price of Rs.2,40,000/- the possession was handed over to the 3^rd Opposite Party six months after the agreement was made. The 3^rd Opposite Party has not entered in to any agreement owning the entire liabilities which was pre-existing. The 3^rd Opposite Party was not given the original records of the vehicle though it was demanded and more over as a stage carriage the 3^rd Opposite Party had not plied the vehicle in any rout. The permit and other records related to the vehicle was not handed over to the 3^rd Opposite Party and in its effect the 3^rd Opposite Party had not given any application to none of the Officers including RTO.

6. When the documents related to the vehicle was not handed over to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The bus was sold to the Naufal, S/o. Muhammed Ali, Thanchangadu House, residing at Rippon, Thalackal agreeing to the terms of agreement between the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Party would be kept up. The Complainant's Son one George acted as a mediator in all the dealing. The bus was in operation in the passenger service. The Complainant was aware of all those facts. The allegation in the complainant are nothing but to evade from the responsibility. The route permit could be renewed only on the application of the R.C owner. The vehicle was sold to Naufal in the year 2001 after the sale of the vehicle in respect of any dealing of the same the 3^rd Opposite Party is not aware of anything. Any recovery proceedings initiated against the Complainant is not known to this Opposite Party. The agreement owner Naufal, S/o Muhammed Ali, Thanchangadu House, residing at Rippon, Thalackal is a necessary party in this case. The complaint is filed on an experimental basis and it is to be dismissed with cost.

7. The sum up of the version filed by the 4^th 5^th and 6^th Opposite Parties are as follows. The recovery proceedings against the Complainant is initiated upon the request of RTO Wayanad in order to collect the tax arrear for the period of 31.3.2002 quarterly ending 31.3.2003. The amount which is to be recovered is Rs.1,34,595/-. The District Collector who is a necessary party in this complaint is not arrayed as the party. The action against the Complainant is to be taken invoking the relevant provisions of Revenue Recovery Act. The Complainant failed to remit the tax arrear and in pursuance of the recovery order the immovable property of the Complainant is attached and posted for the sale 21.2.2005. The Complainant is not a consumer. The fact raised in this case are civil in nature and it is to be tried by the court of civil. The Complainant is liable to pay tax arrear to the government being the R.C owner of the vehicle numbered KL 12/5296. The liability for the payment of the tax was not paid. No 'G' form for the non use of the vehicle was given by the Complainant. As per the provisions of Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act intimation in form 'G' to be given within 7 days. In order to collect the tax arrear due from the Complainant recovery proceedings are initiated the complaint is devoid of any merit it is to be dismissed with cost.

8. Points in consideration are:

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

9. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext. A1 and A19 are marked on the side of the Complainant. Ext. C1 to C4 are the documents of 'G' forms given to the 4^th Opposite Parties in different dates. The 1^st Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and has given oral testimony. Ext.B1 is marked on the side of the Opposite Party.

10. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle was transferred by the complainant and the information in that respect was properly given by the 1^st Opposite Party to the 4^th Opposite Party, the Regional Transport Officer. In the relevant period for which the tax is demanded by the 4^th Opposite Party, the vehicle was not in a possession of the Complainant. The vehicle (No.KL 12 5296 is a stage carriage financed by the 1^st Opposite Party which was later surrendered to the financier on 09.08.2000. On 18.11.2000 the 1^st Opposite Party, the financier entered in to a sale agreement with the 3^rd Opposite Party. Ext. A9 shows that the 1^st Opposite Party signed the agreement of sale with the 3^rd Opposite Party. The hire purchase dealing with the complaint was canceled and a letter Ext. A9 was sent to the 4^th Opposite Party Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad dated 03.01.2001. The clause 9 of Ext.A12 shows that the road tax is to be remitted by the transferee. The 4^th Opposite Party is informed of canceling the agreement of higher purchase. The oral testimony for the 4^th Opposite Party is also given. It is confirmed in the testimony of the 4^th Opposite Party that the hire purchase is canceled and the request was given with effect from 19.9.2000 and no more tax is liable to be paid up to 31.12.2001. The recovery proceedings initiated against the Complainant is based on the registration certificate which is not transferred in the relevant period to the 3^rd Opposite Party. The tax amount levied upon the complainant is for the quarterly year ending 31.3.2002, 31.12.2002 and 31.3.2003. The amount demanded to be recovered is Rs.1,34,595/- with interest and other charges. The Complainant was given intimation and property was attached and more over as the further proceedings of the attachment steps are taken to sell the property.

11. The question which is to be considered mainly whether the tax amount for the aforesaid period can be recovered from the Complainant. Ext.C1 to C4 are the application given in form 'G' which does not cover the period the quarter year ending 31.3.2002, 31.12.2002 and 31.3.2003. The bus was transferred by the agreement of sale to the 3^rd Opposite Party. As per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act the transferee has to get the vehicle registered in his name in proper procedure. The sale was absolute and agreement was executed on 11.8.2000 according to Ext.A7. The tax amount due from the vehicle owner is to be collected from the 3^rd Opposite Party one P.T. Abu who found to be not tried to get the registration certificate of the vehicle transferred in his name. The non compliance of transferring the registration certificate in the name of 3^rd Opposite Party, P.T. Abu the Complainant is not to be penalised. The 3^rd Opposite Party P.T. Abu, S/o. Late Moideenkutty, Padickathodiyil House, Vaduvanchal P.O, Thomattuchal is found to be the agreement owner in the relevant period and he is responsible to pay the tax amount. The proceedings against the Complainant to recover the amount under the steps of revenue recovery initiated by Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad the 4^th Opposite Party is a deficiency in service and point No.1 is found accordingly.

12. Point No.2: - The 4^th Opposite Party, Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad has taken steps to recover Rs.1,34,595/- in the way of revenue recovery proceedings through 5^th and 6^th Opposite Parties. The steps were taken for the sale of the attached immovable property to recover the amount due towards the tax. The complainant has also prayed for return of the document including the title deeds deposited by the Complainant and sureties no evidence is brought out to show that the document were kept as security with 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The 4^th Opposite Party, Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad is directed to cancel the recovery proceedings initiated against the Complainant through the 5^th and 6^th Opposite Parties. We are in the opinion that the tax amount liable to be paid is to be remitted by the 3^rd Opposite Party the agreement owner of the vehicle in the relevant vehicle. The attached property is not to be sold in public auction and for which steps are to be taken by the 4^th Opposite Party.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 4^th Opposite Party is directed not to proceed with revenue recovery steps of attaching the property and to sale it in the way of public auction, all steps taken by the 4^th Opposite Party recover the amount from the Complainant is to be canceled. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are also directed to take steps to get the vehicle transferred in to the name of the actual owner to relinquish the Complainant from any further liability. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply with this within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2008.