D.O.F:14/11/2019

     D.O.O:22/02/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.220/2019                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 22^th   day of February 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                        : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Mukesh.M aged 40 years

S/o Ishwara.H

Dhanya, Chenakod Colony,

Hidayath Nagar Post, Madhur villag,

Kasaragod Dist.

Rep: by his next friend                                                                    : Complainant

Pushparaj Shetty, S/o K Manorama,

R/at Achappa Shetty Lane, Beach road

Kasaragod Post.

(Adv: C.Krishnakumar)

                                                                        And

1. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance

Service Ltd, 2^nd floor, city centre

Bank Road, Kasaraagod Post.

(Adv: Babuchandran.K)

2. Abdul Basheer.A

S/o Moideen.P New house, Post Paer Road,

Thallassery.670101

3. The District Collector,

Civil Station, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod: Opposite Parties

4. The regional Transport Officer,

Civilstation, Vidyanagar

Kasaragod

(Adv: Dist. Govt. Pleader OP 3&4)

ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER

     The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended)

      The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant who is the Registered owner of the Vehicle bearing No. KL 23/3869 entered in to a hypothication agreement with the opposite party for a finance of Rs.2,30,000/- to be repaid 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 12,050/-.

     The complainant defaulted the repayment and the opposite party No.1  seized the Vehicle with in 1 year and sold to opposite party No. 2, in auction, without informing the complainant.   There after the complainant got RR demand notice dated 09.05.2019 from opposite party No.3 for recovery of Rs .63,889/- towards Motor Vehicle Tax for the period from 01.10.2014 to 31.12.2018. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 and obtained sanction to pay the amount in installments.  The complainant submit that the opposite party No.1, after siezing the vehicle from him, became absolute owner of the Vehicle and he sold the vehicle  to opposite party No. 2 for consideration on 24.02.2015 . It was the duty of the opposite party No.1 to make sure that the ownership and RC of the vehicle was changed in the name of subsequent purchaser.

 
     The above said vehicle is now playing at Thalassery and since the complainant is not the actual owner, he is not at all Iiable to pay the Motor Vehicle Tax.  The opposite party No.1 and 2 colluded together to cheat the complainant and thereby caused unlawful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant.   The above action of opposite party No.1 and 2 caused great sufferings mental agony and loss to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party No.1 and 2 to change the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the subsequent purchaser and to refund the amount remitted and a compensation of  Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony and costs.
      The opposite parties entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written Version.

     As per the version of the opposite party No.1, the complaint is  false , frivolous, vexations and not maintainable either at law or on facts . The opposite party No.1 admits the hypothication and financing of Rs.2,30,000/- for the vehicle No. KL 23/3869 of the complainant. The complainant was a cronic defaulter in repaying the Ioan amount and when there was a huge amount in due, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 and consented to sell and appropriate sale proceed against the Ioan outstanding. Accordingly the opposite party No.1  sold the vehicle in public auction complying all the  formalities and intemating to the complainant. lt is the duty of the auction purchaser to take necessary steps to transfer the RC to his name.
There is no service deficiency and the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed.

     As per the version of opposite party No. 2, the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party No. 2  states that the vehicle was not in running condition when it was put in auction and the chassis of the vehicle was cut and could not be used as a vehicle but as scrap. The opposite party No. 2 admits that he bid the auction and took the vehicle as scrap and the allegation of the complaint that the said vehicle was plying at Thalassery is false and denied .The complaint is the RC owner of the vehicle and he is legally obliged to remit the dues to the opposite party No.4. The opposite party No. 2 had no legal need to change the ownership of the vehicle sold as scrap.

   The opposite party No. 3 adopted the version of opposite party No. 4
As per the version of opposite party No. 4, the complaint is  false , frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable  in law.  Since the complainant was a constant defaulter of motor vehicle tax, RR proceedings is initiated for recovery of dues. The complainant was allowed, on application, to pay the amount in 12 instalments, but he paid only 6 instalments and defaulted thereafter. As per law the RC owner or any other person having possession or control of a motor vehicle is Iiable to pay tax. The opposite party No.3 and 4 only acted according to law.
     The Complainant didn't adduce any oral evidence in this case, but certain documents Ext. A1 to Ext. A7 are marked. The Ext. A1 is the repayment schedule, Ext A2 is the a copy of an affidavit, Ext A3 is the Copy of Statement of Account, Ext. A4 is the copy of RR demand notice, Ext A5 is copy of the  installment sanctioning letter, Ext. A6 Series are the receipts (6 in numbers) Ext A7 is the authorization letter.

 From the side of opposite parties, no evidence is adduced.

     Based on the pleadings of the rival parties in this case, the following issues are framed for consideration.

 1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice or negligence
on the part of any of the opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief?

     For convenience, both the above issues are discussed together.

   The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party No.1  seized the Vehicle with in 1 year and sold to opposite party No. 2, in auction , without informing to the complainant.  There after the complainant got RR demand notice dated 09.05.2019 from opposite party No.3  for recovery of Rs. 63,889/- towards Motor Vehicle Tax for the period from 01.10.2014 to 31.12. 2018. The complainant approached opposite party No.3 and obtained sanction to pay the amount in installments.

     The complainant submit that the opposite party No.1 after siezing the vehicle from him , became absolute owner in possession  of the Vehicle and sold the vehicle  to opposite party No. 2 for consideration on 24.02.2015 . It was the duty of the opposite party No.1 to make sure that the ownership and RC  of the vehicle was changed in the name of subsequent purchaser. The above said vehicle is now plying at Thalassery and since the complainant is not the actual owner, he is not at all Iiable to pay the Motor Vehicle Tax.  The opposite party No.1 and 2 colluded together to cheat the complainant and thereby caused unlawful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant.
The above action of opposite party No.1 and 2 caused great sufferings mental agony and loss to the complainant.  Here the relief is sought only against opposite party No.1 and 2.

      The opposite party No.1 would argue that the complainant was a cronic defaulter in repaying the Ioan amount and when there was huge amount in due, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the Opposite Party No.1 and consented to sell and appropriate sale proceed against the Ioan outstanding. Accordingly the opposite party No.1 sold the vehicle in public auction complying all the  formalities and intimating to the complainant. lt is the duty of the auction purchaser to take necessary steps to transfer the RC to his name.
     The opposite party No.2 would argue that the vehicle was not in running condition when it was put in auction and the chassis of the vehicle was cut and could not be used as a vehicle but as scrap. The opposite party No. 2 admits that he bid the auction and took the vehicle as scrap and the allegation of the complaint that the said vehicle was plying is false and denied .The complaint is the RC owner of the vehicle and he is legally obliged to remit the dues to the opposite party No.4. The opposite party No. 2 had no legal need to change the ownership of the vehicle sold as scrap.

      So it is clear from the version of the opposite party No.1 that the vehicle was in actual possession and custody of them till 24.2.2015 the date of auction and there after the opposite party No.2, being the auction purchaser. The hypothication agreement was admitted to be on 12 .09. 2013. The complainant states that the vehicle was seized by the opposite party No.1 within one year. The opposite party No.1 states that the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to them. But no date of siezure or surrender is mentioned anywhere.  As per the complaint it would be in the month of Sept. 2014. The date of auction is 24.02.2015. So in the absence of any rebuttal evidence it can be held that the vehicle was in actual possession of opposite party No.1 during the period from 01.10.2014 to 24.02.2015 and thereafter in the possession of the opposite party No. 2.

      Since the vehicle was put for public auction and sale by the opposite party No.1, they had a bounden duty to take steps to change the owner ship of the RC ,before or immediately after the auction sale. That was not done.
Since the OPNo.2 had bid and purchased the Vehicle in auction, he had the responsibility to change the ownership of the RC in to his name. The opposite party No .2 argue that the vehicle was not in running condition when it was put in auction and the chassis of the vehicle was cut and could not be used as a vehicle but as scrap . The opposite party No. 2 had no legal need to change the ownership of the vehicle sold as scrap. The opposite party No. 2 took possession of the vehicle on 24.02.2015. But here there is no information whether the vehicle is aIready scrapped or not.  But there is no case for the opposite party No. 2 that he had taken steps to cancel the registration for the purpose of scrap.

      As per the Section 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1976, the RC owner or any other person having possession or control of a motor vehicle is Iiable to pay tax in advance. 

    The opposite party No.4 initiated RR proceedings to recover the motor vehicle tax of the vehicle for the period of 01 - 10-2014 to 31-12-2018.

    Since there is no evidence to show that the vehicle is already scrapped, the vehicle was in actual possession of opposite party No.1 during the period from 01.10.2014 to 24.02.2015 and thereafter in the possession of the opposite party No. 2. and as per law  the opposite party No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the  Tax for the Vehicle.

     So considering the facts and circumstance of the case this commission is of the view that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 and 2 and due to which the complainant was put to monitory loss and hardships .The complainant was not Iiable to pay the vehicle tax for the assessment period of 01-10-2014 to 31-12-2018, but due to negligence of the opposite party No.1 and 2 he was compelled to pay Tax.  The RR Proceedings were initiated against him and the document Ext. A6 Series show that he had paid a total of Rs. 34,640 /- towards Tax dues.

      The vehicle was in actual possession of opposite party No.1 during the period from 01.10.2014 to 24.02.2015 and thereafter in the possession of the opposite party No. 2. and as per law  the opposite party No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the  Tax for the Vehicle for the respective period and the  opposite party No.3 is at Iiberty to collect the tax dues of the vehicle No. KL 23/3869 from the opposite party No.1 and 2. The proceedings ordered in this connection against the complainant is illegal and liable to be stopped.

     The complaint estimates the compensation for the mental agony and hardships to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- but there is no proof for such a huge Ioss.
This commission hold that Rs.10,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation.
    In the result the complaint is allowed in part  and the opposite party No 1 and 2  are jointly and severally directed  to pay Rs. 34,640/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 14.11.2019, the date of complaint to the date of payment. The opposite party No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards costs to the complainant.     The Opposite Party No:1 and 2 are directed to take necessary steps to change the R.C of the vehicle in to the name of present owner.

     The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment.

     Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Repayment schedule

A2- Copy of an affidavit

A3- Statement of account

A4- copy of RR demand notice

A5- copy of the installment sanctioning letter.

A6- Series  - Receipts

A7- Authorisation letter

       Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/