BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.627-14

Date of Institution:01-12-2014

Date of Decision:13-04-2015

Tajinder Kaur wife of Sh.Varinderjit Singh, resident of Gali No.1, Azad Nagar, Putlighar, Amritsar.  

Complainant

Versus

1. Castle Toyota A.N.R.Motors Private Limited, Daburji, G.T.Road, Near Byepass, Amritsar.
2. District Transport Officer, Amritsar.  (Name of Opposite Party No.2 deleted vide order dated 4.12.2014)

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.K.P.Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Name deleted.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Tajinder Kaur  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 23.6.2014, she purchased Toyota Innova Car bearing Temporary RC No.PB-02-(Temp) BV-4514 from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant alleges that  she made payment of Rs.66,447/- through cheque to Opposite Party No.1 for  the registration of the said vehicle, but despite completing of all the formalities, till date, the Opposite Party No.1 has not applied for issuance of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question with the Registering Authority.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Party No.1 to get issued the Registration Certificate of the vehicle of the complainant from District Transport Authority, Amritsar. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant purchased the car from the Opposite Party No.1 on 23.6.2014 and the complainant paid the charges for RC on 12.8.2014 vide cheque to the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was having choice of preferential numbers such as 8004 (most preferred) and (8001 to 8003 were optional) and instructed the Opposite Party No.1 to apply RC of the vehicle with such numbers whichever is available.  The Opposite Party No.1 checked  for such preferential numbers immediately on online website of Government of Punjab for depositing of tax qua RC of vehicles, but such numbers were not available at that time. So, the Opposite Party No.1 was not able to apply and deposit tax for the RC of the vehicle of complainant. The tax of RC of vehicles are applied on the online website of Government of Punjab under the process of ‘Dealer’s Point Registration System’ and according to that choice of vehicle number was very much mandatory while depositing road tax of the vehicle as Opposite Party No.1 was required to put the number of vehicle for which tax  is to be deposited first and thereafter all  details of owner were to be submitted in four steps and after completing of these formalities tax was deposited for vehicle. So, numbers preferred by complainant were not available in the list of numbers reflected on the online website of Government of Punjab as such, Opposite Party No.1 was not able to apply for the RC with different number which was available to him. The Opposite Party No.1 was continuously watching for availability of such numbers, but all of sudden the online website of Government of Punjab was closed in the month of September and was resumed in the first week of October with increase of 2% i.e. from 6% to 8% by the Government of Punjab. So, the complainant was asked to pay such difference amount of increased tax, but she did not pay the same to Opposite Party No.1 so far. Instead of paying the same, the complainant has filed the present complaint with manipulated facts just with a view to avoid her liability qua amount of increased tax by government which is totally illegal and abuse of process of law.     While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4, affidavit of Massa Singh Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rakesh Kapoor Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OO1/4  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Toyota Innova Car bearing Temporary RC No.PB-02-(Temp) BV-4514 from Opposite Party No.1. Complainant also paid Rs.66,447/- through cheque to Opposite Party No.1 for  the registration of the said vehicle and this amount was credited  in the account of the  Opposite Party No.1 on 12.8.2014 as per statement of account Ex.C4. Complainant further alleges that he has completed all the formalities for the registration of the vehicle, but the Opposite Party No.1 even did not apply for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant to the Registering Authority i.e. District Transport Officer and now the Opposite Party No.1 has totally refused to get the vehicle of the complainant registered from the Registering Authority. Ld.counsel for the   complainant  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question from Opposite Party No.1 and the same was delivered to the complainant on 23.6.2014. The complainant paid the charges of Registration Certificate of  the car in question on 12.8.2014 vide cheque which was duly credited  in the account of the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 submitted  that the complainant was having  choice of preferential numbers such as 8004 (most preferred) and (8001 to 8003 were optional) and instructed the Opposite Party No.1 to apply RC of the vehicle with aforesaid numbers whichever is available.  The Opposite Party No.1 checked  for such preferential numbers immediately on online website of Government of Punjab for depositing of tax qua RC of vehicles, but aforesaid numbers were not available at that time. So, the Opposite Party No.1 was not able to apply and deposit tax for the RC of the vehicle of complainant. The tax of RC of vehicles are applied on the online website of Government of Punjab under the process of ‘Dealer’s Point Registration System’ and according to that choice of vehicle number was very much mandatory while depositing road tax of the vehicle as Opposite Party No.1 was required to put the number of vehicle for which tax  is to be deposited first and thereafter all  details of owner were to be submitted in four steps and after completing of these formalities tax was deposited for the registration of the vehicle. As the  numbers preferred by complainant were not available in the list of numbers reflected on the online website of Government of Punjab , as such, Opposite Party No.1 was not able to apply for the RC with different number which was available. The Opposite Party No.1 was continuously watching for availability of such numbers, but all of sudden, the online website of Government of Punjab was closed in the month of September and was resumed in the first week of October with increase of 2% i.e. from 6% to 8% by the Government of Punjab. So, the complainant was asked to pay such differential amount of increased tax, but she did not pay the same to Opposite Party No.1 so far. Rather,  she  filed the present complaint with aforesaid manipulated facts just with a view to avoid her liability qua amount of increased tax by government.  Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
8. From the entire above discussion,  we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased Toyota Innova Car bearing Temporary RC No.PB-02-(Temp) BV-4514 from Opposite Party No.1 on 23.6.2014. It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant paid  Rs. Rs.66,447/- to Opposite Party No.1 for  the registration of the said vehicle and this amount was duly credited  in the account of  Opposite Party No.1 on 12.8.2014 as is evident from the  statement of account Ex.C4. This fact has also been admitted by Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant paid this amount of Rs. Rs.66,447/- to Opposite Party No.1 for  the registration of the aforesaid vehicle. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complainant was having  choice of preferred numbers such as 8004  or from 8001 to 8003. The Opposite Party No.1 checked these preferred numbers on online website of Government of Punjab for depositing of tax qua RC of vehicle of the complainant, but such numbers were not available at that time. So, the Opposite Party No.1 was not able to apply and deposit tax for the RC of the vehicle of complainant. Thereafter, the online website of Government of Punjab was closed by the government in the month of September and was resumed in the first week of October with increase of 2% tax i.e. from 6% to 8% by the Government of Punjab. Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complainant was required to pay the increased tax to the Opposite Party No.1, but the complainant did not  pay the same. As such, the Opposite Party No.1 could not apply for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant. This plea of the Opposite Party No.1 is not tenable as it is against the law and natural justice. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.66,447/- with Opposite Party No.1 on 12.8.2014 for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant and this fact has also been admitted by Opposite Party No.1 in their written version as well as evidence i.e. affidavit Ex.OP1/1 of Sh.Rakesh Kapoor. No doubt, Opposite Party No.1 produced two documents i.e. one Ex.OP1/2 on which preferred number 8004 has been mentioned and another document Ex.OP1/3 on which the preferred number 8004 and then 8001, 8002, 8003 has been mentioned, but the Opposite Party No.1 could not produce any evidence that the complainant has restrained the Opposite Party No.1 that if the aforesaid preferred numbers are not available, the Opposite Party No.1 should not apply for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant. If  Opposite Party No.1 has enquired from the online website of Government of Punjab on the same day i.e. 12.8.2014 and the aforesaid numbers were not available as stated by Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1 was bound to inform the  complainant immediately that aforesaid numbers are not available and they were bound either to return the amount to the complainant or ask the complainant to give another preferred number or otherwise they should apply for any general number available on online website of Government of Punjab i.e. Transport Department. But the Opposite Party No.1 was not justified in retaining the amount and not applying for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant. Here in this case, Opposite Party No.1 neither  informed the complainant that the aforesaid preferred numbers are not available nor asked  the complainant for further choice or apply for any number available on the online website of Government of Punjab, but kept mum and did not take any further action for more than one month and in the end of September, 2014 the Government closed the online website of Government of Punjab and resumed the same in the first week of October, 2014 with increased tax by 2% i.e. from 6% to 8%. As such, the Opposite Party No.1 had to pay more i.e. enhanced  tax by 2% to the Registering Authority for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant. It is the Opposite Party No.1  due to whose lapse, more amount i.e. increased tax for the registration of the vehicle has to be paid and not due to any fault on the part of the complainant. So, it is the Opposite Party No.1 who has to bear this loss being suffered by the complainant for non registering of his vehicle. Apart  from this, the complainant has given only preference for number 8004 or from 8001 to 8003, but he never restrained the Opposite Party No.1 that if aforesaid numbers are not available, they should not apply for registration of the vehicle of the complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 did not bother to inform the complainant that the aforesaid numbers preferred by the complainant are not available, so the complainant should tell the Opposite Party No.1 whether registration of his vehicle should be applied for any other number available in  general/ routine. Otherwise, it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 to return the amount of the registration i.e. Rs. 66,447/- to the complainant immediately, but the Opposite Party No.1 did not do so, rather they kept mum to inform the complainant. As such, it is the Opposite Party No.1 who has to bear the increased amount of tax of registration of the vehicle of the complainant.
9. Consequently, the complaint is allowed with costs and the Opposite Party No.1 is directed to get the vehicle of the complainant registered with the Registering Authority on payment of enhanced tax from their own pocket, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 13-04-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                 (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)    (Anoop Sharma)

              Member                         Member