DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA
CC.No.565 of 28-11-2011
Decided on 24-02-2012
Yugdeep Singh Sidhu, aged about 28 years, son of Sh. Gurcharan Singh Sidhu,
Resident of H.No.96, Phase-I, Model Town, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus
District Transport Officer, District Transport Office, Mini Secretariat, Bathinda.
Government of Punjab, through Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh. Navdeep Singh, counsel for the complainant
For Opposite parties: Sh. O.P.Vinocha, counsel for opposite parties
ORDER
Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Ford Figo 1.4 Diesel Titanium Car bearing Engine No.BD23593 and Chassis No.MAJ1XXMRJ1BD23593 from M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vide Invoice No.LDH/5721/2010 -2011 dated 30.03.2011 for a sum of Rs.4,85,925/-. The complainant also paid 12.5% VAT on the price of the above said car i.e. Rs.60,741/- and SC on VAT @ 10% i.e. Rs.6,074/-. In this way, he paid a total sum of Rs.5,52,740/- to M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. Thereafter, the complainant applied for the registration of the above said car in his name with the opposite party No.1 and deposited Rs.10,020/- with the opposite party No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.869822 dated 26.04.2011 and the complainant was issued a Token No.86779/2011 dated 28.04.2011 regarding the tentative date for the delivery of registration certificate on 19.05.2011. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 raised the objection that the complainant had deposited the lesser fee than the actual registration fee payable by him regarding the said car. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the same. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that as per the bill, he has paid Rs.5,52,740/- for purchasing the above said car and as such the registration fee is payable @ 4% on the said value which has exceeded Rs.5 Lacs. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 that as per the Rules and Regulations of the Govt. i.e. as per the provisions of Section 3(4) of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924, the Tax on motor car and motorcycle shall be leviable in lump-sum which shall be counted on the actual price of such vehicle (excluding taxes, if any) the rate shall be determined by the Government from time to time as has been specified in the Schedule” and no registration fee is payable on the amount of VAT rather the same is payable only on the actual price of the car which is only Rs.4,85,925/- i.e. less than Rs.5 Lacs. The opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant rather pressurized him to pay 4% fee on the total amount of bill including VAT charges. The complainant had also sought the information from the opposite party no.1 under RTI Act regarding the registration fee payable as per the rules and regulations of the Govt. vide application dated 24.05.2011 but the opposite party No.1 supplied a false information to him that the registration fee is payable on the price of the car including VAT charges vide letter No.6051 dated 16.06.2011. Under the compelled circumstances, the complainant deposited Rs.12,440/- on 15.07.2011 vide receipt No.535729 and he was given the Token No.118157/2011 regarding the tentative date for delivery of registration certificate on 04.08.2011 and only thereafter, the opposite party issued a registration No. PB-03-Y-3132. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for seeking directions of this Forum to refund the excess amount of Rs.12,741/- deposited by the complainant along with cost and compensation.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the said matter in issue was got clarified through State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 21.06.2011 and it was informed that no such order has been passed by the Govt. that the fee is to be charged excluding the amount of VAT as such the opposite parties were duly bound to charge the registration fee on the total amount of the bill. The opposite parties received a letter No.50111-89 dated 03.11.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that the registration fee is to be charged as per table entered therein but there is no provision regarding refund of amount, if any, charged during the period after the month of March-April, 2011. The opposite parties have further pleaded that they will send letters to this effect that the higher authorities whether the registration fee already received in excess, is refundable or not and after receiving the information from the higher authorities, the opposite parties assured the complainant that the due intimation will be sent to the complainant without any delay. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the complainant himself deposited the amount voluntarily only to obtain the registration number of the vehicle. The opposite parties have denied that it has got deposited the amount under pressure.
3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
5. The complainant had purchased the above said Ford Figo 1.4 Diesel Titanium Car vide Invoice No. LDH/5721/2010-2011 dated 30.03.2011 of Rs.4,85,925/- and had paid 12.5% VAT on the price of the above said car i.e. Rs.60,741/- and SC on VAT @ 10% i.e. Rs.6,074/-. He paid a total amount of Rs.5,52,740/- to M/s A.B. Motors Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana. He had applied for the registration of the above said car in his name with the opposite party No.1 and had deposited Rs.10,020/- through opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.869822 dated 26.04.2011. He was issued a Token No.86779/2011 dated 28.04.2011 regarding the tentative date for the delivery of Registration Certificate on 19.05.2011. The opposite party No.1 had asked him that as per the bill, he has paid a total amount of Rs.5,52,740/- for purchasing the above said car and as such the Registration Fee is payable @ 4% on the said value which has exceed Rs.5 Lacs. As per the Rules & Regulations of the Govt. vide Section 3(4) of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924, the tax shall be leviable in lump-sum which will be counted on the actual price of such vehicle (excluding taxes, if any) at such rate, as may be determined by the Government from time to time besides exceeding the rate, as has been specified in the Schedule. According to the above said rules and regulations, no registration fee is payable on the amount of VAT rather the same is payable on the actual price of the car i.e. Rs.4,85,925/- which is less than Rs.5 Lacs and requested the opposite party No.1 to charge the registration fee according to the above mentioned rules and regulations, provided under the provisions of the 3(4) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 rather the opposite party No.1 pressurized the complainant to pay 4% fee on the total amount of bill including VAT charges. The complainant sought information from the opposite party no.1 under RTI regarding the registration fee payable as per the rules and regulations of the Govt. vide application dated 24.05.2011 but the opposite party No.1 supplied a false information that the registration fee is payable on the price of the car including VAT charges vide letter No.6051 dated 16.06.2011. The complainant under the compelled circumstances had deposited the amount of Rs.12,440/- on 15.07.2011 vide receipt No.535729 and he was given the Token No.118157/2011 regarding the tentative date for delivery of registration certificate on 04.08.2011.
6. On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the matter in dispute, was got clarified through State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 21.06.2011 and it was informed that no such order has been passed by the Govt. that the fee is to be charged excluding the amount of VAT as such the opposite parties were duly bound to charge the registration fee on the total amount of the bill. They received a letter No.50111-89 dated 03.11.2011. In this letter, it has been mentioned that the registration fee is to be charged as per Table entered therein but there is no provision regarding the refund of amount, if any, charged during the period after the month of March-April, 2011. The opposite parties have sent letters to this effect to the Higher Authorities whether the Registration Fee already received in excess, is refundable or not and after receiving the information from the Higher Authorities, the opposite parties assured the complainant that the due intimation will be sent to him without any delay.
7. The complainant had purchased his vehicle on 30.03.2011. Thereafter, he applied for registration of his vehicle in his name with the opposite party No.1 and deposited Rs.10,020/- vide receipt No.869822 dated 26.04.2011. He was issued a Token No.86779/2011 dated 28.04.2011 regarding the tentative date for the delivery of registration certificate to the complainant on 19.05.2011. Thereafter, the opposite parties raised objection that the complainant had deposited the lesser fee than the actual registration fee, payable by him regarding the said car. The complainant was told that he had paid a total sum of Rs.5,52,740/- as per bill for purchasing the above said car as such the registration fee is payable @ 4% on the said value which has exceeded Rs.5 Lacs. The complainant requested that as per Rules & Regulations of the Government i.e. as per the provisions of Section 3(4) of Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924, the tax on motor car and motorcycle shall be leviable in lumpsum which shall be counted on the actual price of such vehicle excluding taxes, if any, as such rate, as may be determined by the Government from time to time besides exceeding the rate as has been specified in the schedule as such registration fee is payable on the actual price of the car which is only Rs.4,85,925/- i.e. less than Rs.5 Lacs. The opposite parties got deposited Rs.12,440/- on 15.07.2011 vide receipt No.535729. This amount has been deposited by the complainant under compelled circumstances. A Token No.118157/2011 regarding the tentative date for delivery of registration certificate on 04.08.2011 was issued. The vehicle was registered and the opposite parties issued a registration No.PB-03-Y-3132.
8. As per Punjab Government Gazette, Extraordinary, published by Authority, Chandigarh Friday, January 18, 2008 (PAUSA 28, 1929 SAKA). According to this notification, Clause-4 Sub Clause 3(4), “The tax on motor car and motor cycle shall be leviable in lump sum, which shall be counted on the actual price of such vehicle (excluding taxes, if any) at such rate, as may be determined by the Government from time to time but not exceeding the rate, as has been specified in the Schedule.”
According to this notification, the opposite parties were required to get deposited the fee from the complainant mentioned in the slab i.e. below to Rs.5 Lacs as the price of the vehicle was Rs.4,85,925/-
9. The complainant has produced a letter Ex.C-7 dated 15.03.2011, the relevant portion of the said letter is:-
“The tax on motor car and motor cycle shall be leviable in lump sum, which shall be counted on the actual price of such vehicle (excluding taxes, if any) at such rate, as may be determined by the Government from time to time but not exceeding the rate, as has been specified in the Schedule.”
10. A perusal of Ex.R-2 also shows that the tax is to be charged 2% of the actual price of the motor vehicle excluding taxes, if any, in lump sum.
11. The opposite parties have to charge the fee of registration on the actual price of the vehicle, whereas they have charged the fee on the price including taxes etc, the slab under which the fee was to be paid changed and he has to pay more fee whereas his vehicle was covered under the slab of below Rs.5 Lacs, he was liable to pay only 2% fee of the actual price of the vehicle in question. The opposite parties got deposited Rs.10,020/- vide receipt No.869822 dated 26.04.2011 and Rs.12,440/- on 15.07.2011. The total amount as fee for registration has been got deposited to the tune of Rs.22,460/-. In this way, the opposite parties have got deposited Rs.12,741/- more from the complainant, as the fee payable on Rs.4,85,925/- was only Rs.9,718.50/-.
12. Thus, in view of what has been discussed above, this Forum concludes that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as they have violated their own notifications issued from time to time and got deposited Rs.12,741/- excess under pressure from the complainant. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.3,000/- as cost and compensation and the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.12,741/- which was got deposited by the opposite parties in excess from the complainant. Compliance of this order be done jointly and severally by the opposite parties in 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% P.A. will yield on the amount of Rs.12,741/- till realization.
A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum
24-02-2012
(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul)
Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur)
Member
