Punjab

Moga

CC/16/98

Satinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

District Transport Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Batra

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 98 of 2016

                                                                                      Instituted on: 13.05.2016

                                                                                      Decided on:  14.09.2016

 

Satwinder Kumar, aged about _ Years son of Lahori Ram C/o Lahori Ram Raj Rishi, 70, Grain Market, Dharamkot, District Moga.

                                                                          ……… Complainant

 

Versus

1.       District Transport Officer, Moga.

 

2.       Director, Transport Department, Punjab, Chandigarh.

 

3.       Radiant Toyota, Chadha Super Cars Pvt. Ltd. Village Bughipura, Nr. Oxford Sr. Sc. School, Ferozepur Road, Moga.

 

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President,

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Kumar Batra, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Harjinder Kumar, Junior Assistant for opposite party nos.1 & 2.

                   Opposite party no.3 ex-parte.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against District Transport Officer, Moga and others (hereinafter referred to as the opposite parties) directing them to pay Rs.39,090/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. Further opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment suffered by complainant and to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant or any other relief which this Forum may deem fit and proper be also granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 15.03.2014, the complainant had purchased Toyota Fortuner 3.0L 2WD MT bearing chassis no. MBJ11JV6104026677, engine no.1KDU497088 from opposite party no.3 after paying valuable consideration vide invoice no.INV1400000045 dated 15.03.2014. At the time of sale of said vehicle to complainant, opposite party no.3 got insured the said vehicle from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. vide policy no.6600215642 from 14.03.2014 to 13.03.2015 after receiving amount of policy. At the time of purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant had deposited the entire tax regarding registration of said vehicle and had also deposited the entire charges of registration in the office of opposite party no.1, who also issued receipt of tax amounting to Rs.1,15,772/-, Smart Card fee of Rs.200/-, registration fee Rs.300/-, Society fee Rs.200/-, Scan fee Rs.20/- and HSRP fee Rs.338/- total Rs.1,16,830/- vide receipt no. 2PB0414102811299 dated 03.04.2014. At that time complainant showed his wishes that he wants to get issue a fancy registration number as per his choice for the said vehicle and the concerned employee of opposite party no.1 & 2 told to complainant that complainant can purchase the fancy number in public auction. After that the complainant approached opposite party no.1 and asked about the auction to get the registration of said vehicle, but the employee of opposite parties replied that no public auction regarding registration of vehicles was conducted by the department, so the registration number of above said vehicle of complainant was not allotted as the auction was not conducted. Thereafter, the complainant got transferred the registration no.PB20K3232 of his previous vehicle to the said Toyota Fortuner Vehicle. The RC regarding number PB29K3232 was issued by opposite parties vide registration dated 03.04.2014. At that time opposite party no.1 forced the complainant to deposit Rs.39,090/- more as tax of said vehicle by saying that fee has been enhanced by the department, whereas the complainant had already deposited the entire taxes and other charges regarding registration of said vehicle with Transport Department on 03.04.2014 and after that the complainant was not liable to pay any other charges of said vehicle. But as per the directions of opposite party no.1 complainant had again deposited the said amount of Rs.39090/- vide receipt no.9215237367210 dated 30.07.2015 under protest with Transport Department. The opposite party no.1 had got deposited Rs.39,090/- from complainant against the rules and regulations of the department. On 27.11.2015, the complainant issued registered legal notice to opposite parties, but to no effect. The opposite parties failed to take any action upon the basis of said notice due to which complainant had again issued another notice vide postal receipts dated 27.11.2015, but to no effect. Due to above said illegal act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered harassment and economic loss. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite party nos.1 & 2 appeared through Sh. Harjinder Kumar, Junior Assistant and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. The State of Punjab through its Secretary, Department of Transport, Chandigarh or its District Collector, Moga has not been impleaded as a party in the present complaint. Moreover, the complainant has wrongly sued the Director, Transport Department, Punjab, Chandigarh, as respondent no.2 in the present complaint, whereas this opposite party no.2 has got no concern, whatsoever, in the alleged dispute of the complainant, so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts in the complaint, with the malafide and willful intention to achieve the ulterior motive. In fact, the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question in the Month of April, 2014 and he had also deposited the requisite registration fee/tax etc, immediately after purchase of the same, but he had approached the replying opposite party no.1 for getting registration of his vehicle, only on 17.08.2015 i.e. after more than one year from the purchase of the vehicle. However, in the meantime, the Punjab Govt. vide notification/letter no.3/2/2011-212/17 dated 7.10.2014 had enhanced the tax amount from 6% to 8% in respect of the four wheeler vehicles (private) and accordingly the complainant had to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.39,090/- i.e. @ 2% for completion of the deficiency. Moreover, the complainant had not raised any objection or protest qua depositing the above amount, at the relevant time nor had moved any representation/complaint to the higher authorities of the opposite party no.1, in this regard. So, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed for concealment of the material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that infact the complainant had got deposited the requisite registration fee and charges etc. through the opposite party no.3 vide online system and not directly in the office of opposite party no.1 as alleged. Further the complainant had never appeared in the office of opposite party no.1 in connection with getting any alleged fancy number nor any officer/official of the answering opposite party no.1 had ever advised/assured the complainant that he can purchase the fancy number in public auction. Moreover the complainant neither has mentioned the date nor the name of the officer/official to prove that on which occasion or by whom, the alleged advise/assurance was given to him. Further submitted that infact the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.03.2014 and he got deposited the requisite registration fee/tax and charges etc. through the opposite party no.3 on 03.04.2014 and thereafter he was required to get the said vehicle registered in the office of the answering opposite party no.1, within a stipulated period of one month from the date of purchase. However, thereafter the complainant had never approached the answering opposite party for getting registered the said vehicle or for grant of any fancy number nor he was ever told by any officer/official as to whether any such auction proceeding qua the fancy numbers was going to be held or otherwise, at the relevant time. Further submitted that the at the time of purchasing the new vehicle by the complainant i.e. in the year 2014 the Punjab Govt. had prescribed the Registration fee/tax of the new vehicles (four wheeler) @ 6% of the total value of the new vehicle. However, since the complainant had approached the office of answering opposite party no.1 only on 17.08.2015 i.e. after more than one year from the purchase of vehicle in question, for getting registration/replacement of the registration number, at his own suitability, but in between the said period, the Punjab Govt. vide Notification/Letter no.3/2/2011-212/17 dated 7.10.2014 had already enhanced the registration fee/tax of four wheeler vehicles from 6% to 8% and no new vehicles could have been got registered without depositing the new registration fee/tax as per norms fixed in the above said Notification/letter of Govt. So, when the complainant had made request for registration of his new vehicle by getting replacement of registration no.PB29K3232 in place of his old vehicle to new vehicle, then he was rightly asked/directed by the answering opposite party no.1 to deposit the enhanced registration fee/tax amounting to Rs.39,090/- i.e. @ 2% and even the complainant had also deposited the requisite fee /tax on line at his own level, without raising any protest or objection at the relevant time and thereafter the above said Registration no.PB-29K3232 was accordingly allotted to his new vehicle. So, the answering opposite party at his own level had not forced the complainant to deposit the enhanced tax/fee, rather the complainant for his own requirement/necessity, was bound to deposit the same as required under the Punjab Govt. Notification/letter referred to above. The alleged contention of the complainant that the RC regarding above said registration number was issued to him w.e.f. 3.4.2014 i.e. from the date of depositing the previous tax/registration fee is also quite irrelevant and not tenable, at this stage. In this regard, it is relevant to be submitted here that the registration certificate was required to be issued to the complainant from the date of purchase of new vehicle and depositing the previous tax/registration fee and not from the date of depositing the remaining enhanced tax as per rules. Further submitted that even if the complainant had felt aggrieved regarding depositing of enhanced tax/fee, then he was immediately required to raise objection or representation for Redressal of the same before the higher authorities of the department of answering opposite party, but nothing in this regard was done by the complainant, rather he without any justified and unwarranted reasons has wrongly approached this Forum. The all other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

4.                Upon notice, opposite party no.3 appeared through their Employee Sh. Dharminder at the first instance. However, thereafter opposite party no.3 did not bother to appear before this Forum, as such, opposite party no.3 was proceeded against ex-parte.              

5.                In order to prove the case, complainant Satwinder Kumar tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

6.                In rebuttal, the opposite party nos.1 & 2 tendered in their evidence duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Anita Darshi, P.C.S. District Transport Officer Ex.OP1,2/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex. OP1,2/42 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

8.                Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently argued that on 15.03.2014, the complainant had purchased one Toyota Fortuner 3.0 L 2WD MT from opposite party no.3 after paying valuable consideration against duly issued invoice dated 15.03.2014. He got his vehicle insured with HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company. After the purchase of the vehicle he applied for the registration of his vehicle with opposite party nos.1 & 2 and deposit the entire charges of registration in the office of opposite party nos.1 & 2. He paid Rs.1,15,772/- as registration charges including Smart Card fee, registration fee, Society fee, Scan fee and HSRP fee vide duly issued receipt dated 03.04.2014, copy of the same is Ex.C-5. The complainant want to get issue a fancy registration number for his vehicle as per his choice. The concerned officials of opposite party nos.1 & 2 told to complainant that the fancy registration number can be purchased in public auction. He approached the office of opposite party no.1 many times and inquired about the auction of fancy registration numbers. The official of opposite party no.1 replied that there is no public auction regarding the registration of vehicles was conducted by the department. So, fancy number for the registration of the vehicle of the complainant was not allotted, as the auction was not conducted. Thereafter, the complainant got transferred the registration number of his previous vehicle to his new vehicle Toyota Fortuner and Registration certificate regarding that number was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant vide registration dated 03.04.2014, copy of the registration certificate is Ex. C-7. At that time opposite party no.1 forced the complainant to deposit Rs.39,090/- more as tax of said vehicle by saying that tax has been enhanced by the department, whereas the complainant had already deposited the entire taxes and other charges regarding registration of the vehicle with Transport Department on 03.04.2014 and after that the complainant was not liable to pay any other charges, but due to pressure of opposite party no.1, the complainant again deposited Rs.39,090/- vide receipt dated 30.07.2015 under protest with Transport Department, copy of the same is Ex.C-6. This amount was got deposited from the complainant against the rules and regulations of the department. Due to this illegal act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and economic loss. The complainant also issued a legal notice to opposite parties requesting them to refund his amount, but to no effect, copy of the legal notice is Ex.C-8. The opposite parties were not entitled to get deposited the amount of Rs.39,090/- from the complainant for the registration of vehicle on account of enhancement of fee, when he had already deposited the entire registration charges as per rules on 03.04.2014 as prevailing at that time. All theses acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. The opposite parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.39,090/- alongwith interest and compensation.

9.                To controvert the arguments of complainant, opposite party nos.1 & 2 argued that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the Forum with malafide and willful intention to achieve the ulterior motive. The complainant had purchased the vehicle in question in the month of April, 2014 and he had also deposited the requisite registration fee and other charges immediately, after the purchase of the same. But he had approached to opposite party no.1 for getting the registration of his vehicle only on 17.08.2015 i.e. after more than one year from the purchase of the vehicle and in the meantime the Punjab Government vide notification dated 07.10.2014 had enhanced the tax amount from 6% to 8% in respect of four wheeler vehicles, copy of the relevant notification is Ex.OP-1,2/2 and accordingly the complainant had to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.39,090/- i.e. 2 % of the price of the vehicle. Moreover, at the time of deposit of said amount, the complainant had not raised any objection or protest nor moved any representation/complaint to the higher authorities in this regard. It is wrong that complainant want to purchase some fancy number for his vehicle and official of opposite party no.1 ever advised him that he can purchase fancy number in public auction. The complainant had purchased his vehicle on 15.03.2014 and got deposit the requisite registration fee/tax and charges etc. through opposite party no.3 on 03.04.2014 and thereafter he was required to get the said vehicle registered in the office of opposite party no.1 within a stipulated period of one month from the date of purchase. But after deposit of registration charges he never approached to opposite party no.1 for getting registration of his vehicle or for grant of any fancy number. Rather, he kept silent for an insufficient time of more than one year. He approached to opposite party no.1 for allotment of registration number to his vehicle only on 17.08.2015 and made a request to replace the registration number of his old Honda Civic Car to his new vehicle Toyota Fortuner. On the request of the complainant, proceeding regarding replacement of registration numbers of both the vehicles of the complainant was ordered to be initiated. All the allegations of the complainant are false, baseless and not tenable against opposite party nos.1 & 2. It is correct that at the time of purchase of vehicle by the complainant, the Punjab Government has prescribed Registration fee/tax of new vehicles (four wheeler) @ 6%, but however vide notification dated 07.10.2014 the taxes were enhanced from 6% to 8% and no new vehicle could have been registered without depositing the registration taxes as per norms fixed by the Government. As the complainant approached to opposite party no.1 to get registration number for his vehicle only on 17.08.2015, so he was directed to deposit the enhanced tax of Rs.39,090/- and he deposited this amount at his own without raising any protest. It is wrong that opposite party no.1 pressurized the complainant to deposit the said amount. Even if the complainant had felt aggrieved regarding the deposit of enhanced charges, then he was immediately required to raise objection or representation for Redressal of his grievance before the higher authorities of the department, but he had not raised any objection at that time. The opposite party no.1 rightly got deposited the requisite enhanced registration tax from the complainant as per direction of Punjab Government and there is no deficiency in service and mal trade practice on their part. The complainant has filed the present complaint on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds and the same deserves dismissal with costs.

10.              We have thoroughly gone through the file, evidence and arguments led by learned counsel for both the parties. The case of the complainant is that in the month of March 2014, the complainant had purchased the vehicle Toyota Fortuner and for the registration of his vehicle he got deposited entire requisite registration tax and other charges with opposite party no.1 and applied for the registration of his vehicle on 03.04.2014. As the complainant wanted to get fancy number for his vehicle, so approached to official of opposite party no.1, who told the complainant that he can purchase fancy registration number in public auction conducted by them. However, no public auction of fancy registration numbers was conducted by the opposite party no.1, so he could not get fancy registration number of his vehicle at that time. Later on he applied for transfer of registration number of his earlier vehicle to his new vehicle and at that time, the opposite party no.1 directed him to pay an amount of Rs.39,090/- on the pretext that the taxes for registration of vehicle is enhanced by the Punjab Government, whereas he had already deposited all the required taxes and charges prevalent at that time and he is not liable to pay any additional amount on account of enhancement of tax. In reply, opposite party nos.1 & 2 submitted that it is correct that on 03.04.2014, the complainant applied for registration of his new vehicle Toyota Fortuner and deposited the entire requisite registration tax and charges with them on 03.04.2014 as per prevalent rate, but they submitted that the complainant approached them only on 17.08.2015 to get the registration number of his vehicle by replacing the registration number of his old vehicle to his new vehicle and in the meantime vide notification dated 07.10.2014, Punjab Government enhanced tax from 6% to 8% for the registration of vehicles, so they rightly directed the complainant to deposit the difference of tax @ 2% of costs of vehicle and there was no illegality. They rightly and legally get deposit the amount from the complainant.

11.              Admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle in question in the month of March, 2014 and applied for the registration of said vehicle with opposite party no.1 vide application dated 03.04.2014, copy of the same is Ex.OP1, 2/37. Admittedly he deposited the entire tax and other charges for the registration of his vehicle with opposite party no.1, which was prevalent at that time and duly received by opposite party no.1 and they issued receipt for the same. The complainant also completed all the formalities and submitted all the necessary documents to opposite party no.1 for the registration of his vehicle. However, only the allotment of registration number of the vehicle was to be done by the opposite party no.1, as the complainant wanted to get a fancy number for his vehicle and opposite party no.1 told that he can get fancy number of his choice only in public auction. However, the fancy registration number of his vehicle was not allotted, as the opposite party no.1 did not conduct the public auction. Thereafter, the complainant applied for replacement of registration number of his old vehicle to his new vehicle in question. Now the opposite party no.1 argued that in the meantime vide notification dated 07.10.2014, the Government enhanced the registration tax from 6% to 8%. So, they got deposited Rs.39,090/- from complainant as difference of tax at the time of allotment of registration number to the vehicle of the complainant. Admittedly the complainant deposited entire tax and other charges to opposite party no.1 on 03.04.2014 on the prevalent rate of tax and only allotment of registration number of the vehicle is to be left. From the perusal of notification dated 07.10.2014 on the basis of which the opposite party no.1 got deposited additional amount of Rs.39,090/- as difference of tax from the complainant, it reveals that as per notification this will come into force w.e.f. 08.10.2014 and there is no retrospective effect of this notification. As the complainant had already deposited the entire requisite tax, fee and other charges for registration of his vehicle on 03.04.2014 at the prevalent rate of tax, so, the opposite parties are not entitled to claim the difference of tax on the basis of notification dated 07.10.2014 which come into force w.e.f. 08.10.2014, at the time of allotment of registration number to the vehicle of the complainant. All these acts of opposite party nos.1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

12.              In view of the above discussion, the present complaint in hand is allowed against opposite party nos.1 & 2 and they are directed to refund the amount of Rs.39,090/-, which they charged wrongly and illegally from the complainant as difference of registration tax alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 30.07.2015, when the complainant deposited this amount with them till final realization. Further opposite party nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Complaint against opposite party no.3 stands dismissed. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 14.09.2016

 

                                                          (Bupinder Kaur)                   (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                                               Member                                 President