DATE OF FILING: 22.03.2013
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2013
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.LIZAMMA ABRAHAM.K MEMBER
C.C No.78/2013
Between
Complainant : Aleykutty Joseph, Marippurathu House,
Nedumkandam P.O,
Nedumkandam, Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Joint RTO,
(Sub Regional Transport Officer) Sub Regional Transport Office,
Vandiperiyar P.O,
Vandiperiyar, Idukki District.
2. The District Collector,
Idukki, Painavu P.O,
Kuyilimala, Idukki District.
3. The Deputy Tahsildar(RR),
Udumbanchola Taluk,
Nedumkandam P.O,
Idukki District.
4. The Village Officer,
Kalkoonthal Village,
Nedumkandam P.O,
Nedumkandam, Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant purchased 2 good vehicles bearing Reg. Nos.KL-6B-2707 and KL-6B-2708 for the purpose of her husband's business, which is an industrial unit named 'Kissan Industries'. The industrial unit was taken over by the KFC and also with the help of the Police and officials of Motor Vehicle Department, the road worthy test of the vehicle was restrained by the KFC officials in the month of March 2013. So the vehicles were not able to ply through the road. Hence the complainant filed a request to the Ist opposite
(cont...2)
- 2 -
party for the exemption of road tax on 17.04.2013 since the vehicles were kept ideal. Eventhough a revenue recovery notice has been issued in the year 2006 by the opposite party, after enquiry it was revealed that the vehicles were not all using by the complainant and the revenue recovery proceedings were terminated by the opposite party. But unfortunately a notice has been issued by the 4th opposite party on 31.10.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,38,600/-which is the due of the road tax of the vehicle and revenue recovery proceedings were also initiated against the complainant. The vehicles were kept ideal, never conducted the road worthy test and the matter was also intimated to the Ist opposite party. The vehicles were also completely destroyed while it was kept ideal at Soilpetty in Tamil Nadu boarder due to the influence of the KFC officials and police. So this petition is filed for restraining the opposite parties from the recovery proceedings dated 31.10.2012.
As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that the 4th opposite party issued a recovery notice to the complainant for the tax dues of Rs.1,38,600/- on 31.10.2012 and the complainant is liable to pay the tax dues and its arrears. The non-use of the vehicles bearing Reg. Nos.KL-6B-2707 and KL-6B-2708 was not at all intimated to the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Vandiperiyar in proper form. There is statutory provisions for getting exemptions from the payment of road tax due to non-use of vehicles. As per Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, “if a vehicle is not intended to be used, the registered owner or the person who is having the possession of the vehicle shall give a previous intimation in writing to the RTO from whom the endorsement of tax has been obtained. And it is prescribed in Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1975 that the intimation shall be given to the RTO in Form G or in writing with the particulars required therein so as to reach the RTO within one week from the intended date of non-use, and acknowledgement should be obtained from the RTO. If the particulars mentioned in the G form is available, only the RTO can make verification regarding the non-use, garage place, reason for non-use, period of tax exemptions etc. The registered owner has to make available the certificate of registration for making necessary endorsement regarding the non-use of the vehicle. And Section 5(3) of the Act says that the burden of proving that a motor vehicle has not been used for any period shall be on the registered owner of the person having the possession of the vehicle”. None of these provisions were complied by the complainant and no acknowledgement has been produced so far. Moreover the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of
(cont...3)
- 3 -
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The service rendered by the Ist opposite party is without consideration which will not come within the purview of the Act. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
3.As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, on behalf of the opposite parties 2, 3 and 4, it is admitted that the complainant failed to remit motor vehicle tax arrear of her vehicles to the Ist opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,38,600/- . So the Ist opposite party requested the District Collector, Idukki to recover the arrears as if it were arrears of public revenue due on land invoking provisions of Section 69(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968. The District Collector, Idukki on 21.08.2012 certified the amount to be recoverable under the Act and directed this opposite party to realise the amount. But the complainant availed instalment facility from the District Collector to remit Rs.25,000/- on 18.03.2013 and balance to be paid in equal monthly instalments and this facility was also not complied by the complainant. Once the amount is certified to be recoverable under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, the Department of Revenue is duty bound to realise the arrears invoking one or other provision contained in the Act. Moreover the petition is not at all maintainable before this Forum as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite parties never renders any service and so there is no deficiency as per Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence this complaint is not at all comes under Section 2(d) of the Act.
The POINT :- The allegation of the complainant is that the 4th opposite party issued a revenue recovery notice for an amount of Rs.1,38,600/- illegally on 31.10.2012, since the complainant already filed an application to the Ist opposite party for getting exemption of tax because of the non-use of the vehicle and copy of the petition also produced before the Forum. The vehicle was kept ideal at Tamil Nadu check post due to the influence of the KFC officials and police and the entire industrial unit has been taken over by the KFC. Colluding with the KFC, the 4th opposite party issued demand notice for the arrears of road tax of the vehicles eventhough the vehicles were not at all plying, but Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated. But as per the Ist opposite party, the complainant never complied the statutory provisions for getting exemption for the payment of road tax dues of the vehicles.
As per Section 5 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976, if a vehicle is not intended to be used the registered owner or the person who is having the possession of the vehicle shall give a previous intimation in writing to the RTO from whom the endorsement of tax has been obtained. And it is prescribed in Rule 10 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1975 that the intimation shall be given to the RTO in Form G or in writing with the particulars required therein so as to reach the RTO within one week from the intended date of non-use, and acknowledgement should be obtained from the RTO. If the particulars mentioned in the G form is available only the RTO can make verification regarding the non-use, garage place, reason for non-use, period of tax exemptions etc. The registered owner has to make available the certificate of registration for making necessary endorsement regarding the non-use of the vehicle and the registered owner is having the burden of the same.
The complainant never complied any of the formalities of the Act and no acknowledgement has been submitted so far, so that as per the requisition of the Ist opposite party, Revenue recovery proceedings were issued on 13.08.2012 against the complainant. Eventhough the complainant produced a copy of the application given to the Ist opposite party for getting exemption of the tax, but no acknowledgement or receipt has been given before the Forum to show that such a request has been given by the complainant to the opposite party. Moreover the collection of road tax is a state revenue which is part of the statutory duties of the Government and it is a sovereign power of the State. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No.3911 of 2003 between Bihar School Examination Board and Suresh Prasad Sinha and in S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps, Delhi(1995). Moreover this petition will not comes under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party as per Section 2 (d) of the Act.
So this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the matter while RR proceedings were initiated against the complainant.
Hence the petition is not maintainable and dismissed. The complainant can approach appropriate authority if so, advised.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2013
Sd/-
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.LIZAMMA ABRAHAM.K(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
