By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: <br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows:<br /> The Complainant is the R C Owner of the Stage Carriage bearing No. KL 12 6462. The Vehicle was hypothecated to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The loan availed was Rs.3,50,000/-. The Opposite Party seized the vehicle on 07.1.1999. The vehicle which was seized and repossessed was kept in Malabar Motor Transport Co-Operative Society at Panniyankara, Calicut, thereafter it was sold in public auction in November 1999. The proceedings of the public auction was completed in December 2000. While availing loan for the stage carriage the complainant had deposited the documents of the land property as collateral security. The Opposite Party No.2 did not attend properly to keep the vehicle in proper condition unaffected of bad weather. (Contd...... 2)<br /> <br /> - 2 -<br /> Being the vehicle was kept idle exposed to bad weather, the value of the vehicle depreciated considerably and the vehicle was sold in auction for Rs.1,60,000/- only. The deserving value is Rs.3,00,000/- apart from that the 2nd Opposite Party levied up on the Complainant a huge amount as carriage charges. The Complainant is not liable to pay the carriage charges. The repossession up on seizure of the vehicle was effected on 07.01.1991. The 2nd Opposite Party did not submit application in form G to the RTA who is arrayed as the 3rd Opposite Party. On 28.04.2000 the Complainant paid Rs. 5,000/- . While making that payment, the 2nd Opposite party informed the Complainant that the outstanding balance is Rs. 31,944/-. Later when the Complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party to clear the dues and get back the title deed deposited as security, the 2nd Opposite Party informed that he has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- if the loan is to be closed. According to the Complainant the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tried to recover from the Complainant the tax amount paid. Being the vehicle was in possession under the custody of the Opposite Party the Complainant has no liability to pay the road tax. The payment of road tax was due to the inadvertant act of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The Opposite Party could have got exemption from the road tax if the application in G form was given in time. The Complainant is not liable to pay any further amount to the 2nd Opposite Party. The document which are pledged as the security is to be given back. The earnest money of Rs.5,000/- is also to be given to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties Act is an absolute deficiency of service. The Complainant is to be returned of the document which are deposited as security. In tune of damages the Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are to give the Complainant Rs. 1,50,000/-. The EMD amount which is deposited is to be refunded and a direction to the 3rd Opposite Party for granting exemption of the tax of Rs.74,390/-. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties No.1, 2 and 3 filed version upon their appearance. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 admitted the hypothecation of the vehicle and the collateral security deposited by the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 the Complainant violated the<br /> (Contd..... 3)<br /> - 3- <br /> <br /> terms & conditions and further the Complainant is a chronic defaulter. The vehicle was seized on 7.01.1999. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 timely filed form G application for three consecutive periods of quarterly tax. The other allegations of the Complainant that the vehicle was not kept under proper protection is denied by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The highest bidder in public auction was the Complainant's Son but when the Complainant's Son is withdrawn from this offer the auction was confirmed on the second highest bidder for Rs. 1,60,000/-. According to Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 they are not bound by duty to intimate Regional Transport Officer of the non use of the vehicle. The R C Owner, Complainant is the sole person who has to inform the Regional Transport Officer and the form G application is to be given by the R C Owner for the exemption of tax. The application given by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 instead of the RC Owner is only because of a precautionary measure. Even after the repeated request of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 the Complainant was not ready to surrender the R C book. The Opposite Party No.2 availed a duplicate R C only after One year from the date of repossession of the vehicle. The delay in obtaining the duplicate RC could have been averted if the surrendering of the RC was done in time. The Opposite Party No.2 was obliged to transfer the ownership to the next purchaser of the vehicle and a clearance certificate that the vehicle has no liability is to be given to the purchaser for which an application was moved by the Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.3. It was insisted that all the tax dues even for the period when the vehicle was dept idle was to be cleared and the Opposite Party No.2 had to pay Rs.74,390/- on 19.5.2000 towards the tax liability. The Complainant's failure in the repayment of the loan is the sole reason for incurring all the difficulties. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 acted diligently and properly and no deficiency of services is there on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The notice by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Complainant is not within the awareness of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The vehicle was sold in auction for lucrative price. The Complainant is liable to be cleared all loan dues. <br /> (Contd .... 4)<br /> - 4 -<br /> The EMD Rs.5,00,000/- is not entitled to the Complainant the entire act of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are appropriate without any touch of deficiency. The complainant is not entitled for any damages from the Opposite Party the Complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.<br /> <br /> The Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad is supplemented as the Opposite Party No.3. Version is filed on their appearance. It is contended by the Opposite Party No.3 that they are not at all connected to the facts alleged. According to them the tax in respect of the vehicle had been paid successively up to 13.9.1998 to the tune of Rs.11,240/- per quarter. The Complainant made dues of the vehicle tax for the quarter ending on 31.12.1998. Up on the demand notice issued to the Complainant for the payment of the vehicle tax due, instead of paying the tax dues the Complainant produced agreement showing that the vehicle was sold to another person, Opposite Party No.3 did not exempt the complainant from the liability of the tax payment. It was due to the inability on the part of R3 to exempt the Complainant from the payment of the tax merely up on the production of the sale agreement. According to Opposite Party No.3 the Complainant had been in the role of RC Owner. During this time Kerala Financial Corporation filed an application in form G to exempt the vehicle from tax for the period from 1.04.1999 to 30.6.1999 and for quarter ending 31.3.2000. The reason which was shown that the vehicle was carriaged at Malabar Motor Transport Society, Calicut. However during the period 1.07.1999 to 30.9.1999 and from 1.10.1999 to 31.12.1999 no intimation regarding the non use of the vehicle was furnished, the Kerala Financial Corporation is directed to remit tax dues during the period when no form G application were filed, later on report of the Kerala Financial Corporation that the vehicle was sold and requested for certificate of clearance. The Opposite Party No.3 collected Rs.71,390/- as tax dues for the period from 01.10.1998 to 31.12.1998, 01.01.1999 to 31.3.1999, 01.07.1999 to 31.12.1999 and from 1.04.2000 to 30.4.2000. During the period when form G was filed the Opposite Party No.3 granted exemption that was Rs.18,734/-. Up on clearance of the tax dues <br /> (Contd ..... 5)<br /> - 5 -<br /> fresh RC issued in favour of the financier on 13.4.2000 and clearance certificate was issued to Regional Transport Officer, Malapuram on 19.5.2000.<br /> <br /> The issues which are to be considered are:-<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?.<br /> 2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for any compensation and other reliefs?<br /> 3.What order up on costs?.<br /> Point No.1:-<br /> The Complainant was examined as PW1, on chief examination of PW1 he has ascertained that the successive payments of the installments were defaulted. The vehicle was sold in a reduced price because of the lack of care and attention given to the protection of the vehicle, the value <br /> assessed for the vehicle was Rs.2,64,000/- . Due to the exposer to rain and light value of the vehicle was depreciated. The Manager in Kalpetta Branch of the Kerala State Financial Corporation is examined as the OPW1. The PW1 further deposed that Kerala Financial Corporation is duty bound to file application in form G for tax exemption, the PW1 on chief examination further avered that the Opposite Party No.3 was not liable to impose tax for the period when the vehicle was kept idle. The Complainant filed documents in support of the facts alleged, they are marked as Ext.A1 to A10. The OPW1 who was in charge of the Manager, Kerala State Financial Corporation Kalpetta during the tenure was examined and the documents Ext. B1 to B11 were marked. The Opposite Party No.3 did not bring out any oral evidence apart from the version filed by them. On perusing documents, produced by PW1 it is evident that the PW1 did not pay the vehicle tax for the quarter ending 31.12.1998 It is admittedly seen that the tax levied upon a single quarter is Rs.11,240/-. The vehicle seized and repossessed by the Kerala State Financial Corporation, cannot be challenged being Complainant is a chronic defaulter. The crusual question on the responsibility of the payments of the tax after the seizer and repossession of the vehicle is to be observed under the aspect in which whether any deficiency of service effected. <br /> (Contd .... 6)<br /> 6 -<br /> Whether the PW1, the Complainant or Kerala State Financial Corporation is liable for and who is the appropriate person for filing application in form G to the Opposite Party No.3 to get exemption from the tax payment. When the vehicle was in use of PW1 the liability for the payment of tax absolutely vests upon PW1 alone. Where as after the seizer and repossession of the vehicle by the Kerala State Financial Corporation the liability of the payment of tax lies upon the Kerala Financial Corporation alone. If any exemption from the tax payment if necessitated due to the idle keeping of the vehicle, the financier who repossessed upon seizer is responsible for it. Our Honorable High Court in a NPR Finance Ltd V/S State of Kerala reported in 2002(1) KLT 591 observed that “If the tax leviable in respect of any Motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for the payment thereof and such person before payment of the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession <br /> or control of such vehicle the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax”.<br /> <br /> The liability vested up on the Kerala Financial Corporation to get exempted from the tax payment is not absolutely done for the entire period after the repossession of the vehicle. The responsibility in service of OPW1 is found vitiated. Apart from that in order to surrender the RC steps were not seen taken by the OPW1, the vehicle was kept in the garage of Malabar Motor Transport Corporation Society Ltd, Calicut. The Ext.B2 series produced by OPW1 show that except the receipt dated 2.08.1999 of Rs.2,170/- all other receipt of the garage charges is levied for a vehicle bearing No. KL 12 6242 it is also seen admitted by OPW1. However liability on the part of the PW1 to pay the tax for the period in which the vehicle was in his possession is to be met by the Complainant axcept this aspect all other matters with respect to point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> (Contd ..... 7)<br /> <br /> 7 -<br /> Point No.2: <br /> The contention raised by the PW1 that the vehicle was sold in auction at the low price and <br /> the Compensation prayed for the selling of the vehicle at a low price due to the improper sheltering of the vehicle is not drawn out in evidence, it is admittedly seen that the PW1's Son was the highest bidder and the auction was confirmed on for Rs.2,50.000/-. On the non payment of the bidding sum the auction was again reconfirmed on the second highest bidder for Rs.1,60,000/-. The Opposite Party No.3 up on receipt of the application in form G exempted the tax for the periods in which the application was filed. There is no ground for the Complainant to get compensated for the depreciation of value. Regarding the other reliefs, the title deeds deposited as collateral security by PW1 is to be given back. The Complainant is also directed to make payment to the 2nd Opposite Party of Rs.11,240/- and its interest at the rate of 9% from 31.12.1998 till the date of payment. This is the amount for which the Complainant became a defaulter in payment of tax in ending quarter 31.12.1998.<br /> <br /> In the result the 2nd Opposite Party is ordered to give back the Complainant the title deed kept in as collateral security, on receiving Rs.11,240/- (Rupees Eleven thousand Two hundred and forty only) from the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party is also entitled to receive the interest at the rate of 9% for Rs.11,240/- from 31.12.1998 till the date of payment by the Complainant. If any one of the parties fail to comply with the order within one month the other party is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of law. No order upon cost.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 6th day of September 2007<br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> (Contd ....... 8)<br /> - 8 -<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for Complainant:<br /> PW1 Kumaran Complainant.<br /> Witnesses for Opposite Parties:<br /> OPW1 Umesh Babu Asst. Manager, KFC.<br /> Exhibits for Complainant:<br /> A1 series. Cash Receipt Voucher <br /> A2. Copy of Lawyer notice. dt:15.7.2000.<br /> A3. Letter dt:6.01.2000.<br /> A4. Proceedings of Registering Authority, Wayanad.<br /> A5. Letter. dt:29.3.1999.<br /> A6. Letter. dt:26.9.2000.<br /> A7. Provisional Statement of Accounts to 22.9.2000.<br /> A8. Provisional Statement of Accounts to 25.6.2000.<br /> A9. Provisional Statement of Accounts to 24.3.2000. <br /> A10. Paper Publication.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> B1 Series Form – G<br /> B2 Series Bills<br /> B3 Statement of Accounts.<br /> B4. Lawyer Notice dt:15.7.2000<br /> B5. Letter. dt:14.6.2000<br /> B6. Letter. dt:8.03.2000<br /> B7. Letter dt:19.2.2000<br /> B8. Letter <br /> B9. Letter dt:29.3.1999.<br /> B10. Letter dt:20.1.1998.<br /> B11. Letter. dt:15.3.99<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />