By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1. The complaint in short is as follows :-
On 01/10/2019 complainant purchased one Mahindra 1995 model Jeep bearing registration No KL 10 C 7444 from first opposite party. At the time of purchasing the vehicle opposite party No.1 assured to complainant that the validity for road tax of the vehicle existed till 31/03/2022. That is also noted in the registration certificate of the vehicle. Thereafter complainant changed the RC in to his name and at that time also validity of the road tax existed till 31/03/2022.
2. On 30/03/2022, when complainant approached opposite party No.2 for paying the road tax, it was informed to the complainant that the validity of the road tax already over on 31/03/2019. Hence opposite party No.2 directed the complainant to pay an additional amount of Rs.12,440/- as road tax and he paid the same. Complainant is a farmer and he purchased the vehicle for his daily purposes. Moreover he obeyed all the laws pertaining to that vehicle and he had paid the tax in due time.
3. Complainant paid the road tax on 30/03/2022 as per the direction mentioned by opposite party No.2 in the tax receipt. The complainant approached the second opposite party after 5 years to renew the tax by remitting Rs.8,600/-. But he was forced to pay Rs.12,444/- and then an additional amount of Rs.200/- as late fee . The complainant is not liable to remit late fee or additional fee towards the tax. The complainant was forced to remit the additional fee due to the mistake on the part of the second opposite party. The act of the second opposite party caused mental agony and hardship to complainant. It is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties.
4. The prayer of the complainant is that, he is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and
notice served on them and they appeared before the Commission and filed version.
6. In their version opposite party No.1 admitted that he sold the above mentioned Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No. KL 10 C 7444 on 01/10/2019 . Opposite party No.1 again stated that on 01/04/2014 he had paid Rs.8,600/- as per 55/12615/2014 till the date 31/03/2022. It is very clear in the complaint of the complainant and the copy of the registration certificate submitted by the complainant before the Commission. He again stated that he is not aware about the allegation raised by the complainant that when he paid the tax , tax validity of vehicle was up to 31/03/2019 and complainant forced to pay exorbitant tax of Rs.12,440/.
7. He again stated that actually the tax validity of the above vehicle was from 01/04/2014 to 31/03/2022. The additional tax paid by the complainant is solely the liability of RTO Malappuram and his office. There is no fault from the side of opposite party No.1. Hence there is no liability from opposite party No.1 to compensate the complainant.
8. The second opposite party filed version contenting that a clerical error occurred in the old software “smart move” from SRT office Nilambur during 2019 while updating the tax payment details while transferring the vehicle to that office jurisdiction. Thus the validity was mistakenly printed in registration certificate up to 31/03/2022 instead of 31/03/2019. Hence the registered owner presumed that vehicle has tax validity up to 31/03/2022, while in “Parivahan” portal, the actual tax validity is up to 31/03/2019 for the vehicle and the above tax license has been ported from tax payment details of old software . Tax with respect to the vehicle became due on 01/04/2019 at that date the registered owner was only liable to pay tax amounting to Rs.8,600/- as per amendment vide finance act 2014 to Kerala motor vehicle taxation schedule . But due to wrong presumption that the tax valid up to 31/03/2022, the complainant was subjected to pay the tax of Rs.8,600/- along with additional tax Rs.860/- and interest Rs.2,580/-and a total amount of Rs.12,040/- during 2022. The second opposite party submitted that a direction has been issued to clerk not to repeat such clerical errors in future. No request has been obtained in this office till date from the registered owners of the above vehicle during the periods 26/07/2019 to 10/11/2019 and with effect from 11/11/2019 for the correction of tax validity. Both of them never verified the tax paid details in consultation with the department during that period. No other amount other than additional tax and interest as per Kerala motor vehicles taxation rule for belated payment has been levied from the registered owner. There exist no provisions as per rules to refund or adjust the already paid amount by the owner for the period 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2024. It will be loss to government revenue if done so.
9. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents he produced were marked as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the copy of tax receipt from 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2024. Ext. A2 is the copy registration certificate of the above vehicle.
10. The opposite parities did not file affidavit and documents to prove their case and so they set exparte.
11. Heard the complainant and perused the affidavit and documents filed by complainant. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant submitted two documents which are very supportive to prove his case. In this case, it is clear that there is no role for opposite party No.1. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 admitted that there occurred a clerical mistake in the old soft ware "smart move” from SRTO, Nilambur during 2019, while updating the tax payment details and while transferring the vehicle to that office jurisdiction. They again admitted that the validity was mistakenly printed in registration certificate as 31/03/2022 instead of 31/03/2019. They also admitted that the vehicle owner presumed that vehicle has tax validity up to 31/03/2022. They also stated that in the “parivahan” portal the actual tax validity up to 31/03/2019 has been ported. In this case there is no mistake from the side of complainant and opposite party No.1. Hence we are on the opinion that, complainant paid the tax in time as per the direction mentioned in the tax receipt. There is no mistake from the side of complainant. He had approached opposite party on 30/03/2022 and he was directed to pay Rs.12,444/- and he paid that amount.
12. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party on 01/10/2019 and for the relevant period the first opposite party was liable to pay the tax, but due to the mistake the first opposite party did not remit the tax. The complainant was under the impression the tax validity was up to 31/03/2022 as per the endorsement in the registration certificate and he also approached the second opposite party for remittance of tax on 30/03/2022. If the endorsement in registration certificate regarding tax was correctly made. The complainant was liable to remit tax of Rs.8,600/-. But due to the mistake on the part of the second opposite party he compel to remit additional tax of Rs.860 and interest of Rs.2,580/-. So it can be seen that due to the mistake on the part of the second opposite party the complainant was forced to pay the exorbitant amount and which caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.
13. The second opposite party submitted that there is no provision as per rules to refund or adjust the already paid amount and if at all it is refunded it will be a loss to the government revenue. The submission of second opposite party cannot be accepted at any right. The contention of the second opposite party is nothing but an absurdity. The complainant like consumer is not liable to suffer for the mistakes done by the officials while doing the duty. The second opposite party is liable to refund and compensate as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issues deficiency in service from the part of government servants in the decision reported 2019 supreme (SC 1021) i.e Punjab urban planning and development authority VS Vidya Chetal in Special Leave to appeal ( C ) No. (S) 4272 of 2015.
14. The complainant herein was forced to pay the tax as Rs.12,444/- due to the mistake on the part of the second opposite party and so the second opposite party is directed to refund the said amount to the complainant. The second opposite party admitted that there was a mistake on the part of concerned clerk and due instruction as given not to repeat such clerical errors in future. Hence as stated by second opposite party the government is not liable to loss caused due to the mistake on the part of employee. Hence the second oppose party is permitted to recover the same from the concerned person if it is necessary. The complainant also entitled a reasonable amount of Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Hence considering the entire facts of the case we allow this complaint as follows:-
1) The second opposite party is directed to refund Rs.12,440/- (Rupees twelve thousand four hundred forty only) to the complainant, the amount mistakenly collected from the complainant and thereby deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party. The second opposite party is at liberty to realize the said amount from the concerned employee if it is necessary.
2) The second opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The second opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party will be liable to pay interest at the rate 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint to till date of payment.
Dated this 25th day of July, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1
Ext.A1: Tax receipt from 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2024.
Ext.A2: Registration certificate of the above vehicle.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
