In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 59 / 2010.
1) Dr. Jayanta Kr. Sen,
FD 218/2, Sector-3, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Director, Motor Vehicle Dept.,
38, Beltolla Kolkata.
2) Lexus Motors Ltd.,
209, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700017. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member.
Order No. 28 Dated 30/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Dr. Jayanta Kr. Sen against the o.ps. Motor Vehicle Deptt and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a car bearing no.WB-02-K7009 which was a non AC car, a Tata Indica (Petrol) car. Complainant had been to the office of o.p. no.1 and payment for charges / tax was obtained from complainant treating the said vehicle as an AC car and complainant had to pay the requisite fees for tax of the said vehicle treating the same as AC one. Further case of the complainant is that complainant wrote several letters to o.p. no.1 and visited several times and despite the same complainant was directed to pay the tax on the basis of AC car. Hence, the case filed by complainant with the prayer mentioned in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.1 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegation labeled against it. O.p. no.2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and the case was heard ex parte against o.p. no.2 accordingly. Ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case on the plea that they did not have any lapse on their part in this regard stating that it is the complainant who filled in the Form 20 and the said Form 20 has been filed by o.p. no.1 together with w/v. it has been argued by ld. lawyer of o.p. no.1 that they have already rectified the charge towards non AC instead of AC car and word ‘Diesel’ was written by complainant himself in Form 20 in respect of the ‘fuel used in the engine’ of the vehicle in question.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. From para 5 of the petition of complaint it is the averment of complainant that the column meant for AC , non AC prescribed form filled in wrongly due to inadvertence and that apart from Form 20 i.e. form of application for registration of motor vehicle produced by o.p. no.1 together with w/v, we also come to find that there is mentioned of the word ‘Diesel’ as against serial no.19 of the said form which was filled by complainant himself and from the Smart Card there appears on the reverse side ‘Diesel’ following the filling up of Form 20.
O.p. no.1 in the course of argument submitted that during the period of 2010-2016 they have adjusted / removed the dispute of their own in respect of the charge / tax of the vehicle in question. O.p. no.2 filed a report stating that the said vehicle was not AC fitted at the time of purchase.
In view of the findings above and on perusal of the entire materials on record, we find that some correction and/or rectification are needed in respect of the relevant papers of the vehicle in question. From the registration certificate we find that the vehicle was registered on 24.2.2000. Accordingly, we hold that complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest in part with cost against o.p. no.1 and ex parte without cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is hereby strictly directed to make appropriate corrections / rectifications in relevant papers of the registered vehicle no.WB-02-K7009 belonging to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of this order.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ ___Sd-_____ _______Sd-________
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
