Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/212/2015

The Registration & Licensing Officer, Municipal Corporation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Maninder Jit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

06 Oct 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	212 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	01.09.2015
Date of Decision		06.10.2015

 

The Registration & Licensing Officer, Municipal Corporation Building, Sector 17, U.T., Chandigarh.

 ……Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Maninder Jit Singh S/o Sardar Inderjit Singh resident of House No.512, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

....Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:

 

Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the appellant.

Sh. Maninder Jit Singh, respondent in person.

 

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.06.2015 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short District Forum) vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint No.832 of 2014, filed by the complainant (now respondent) against the Opposite Party (now appellant) and directed it as under:-

“8.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed  to:-

[a]  To refund the excess road tax charged from the Complainant;

[b]  To pay Rs.6,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment;  

[c] To pay Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation;

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.4,000/-.”

2.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased Hyundai i10 car bearing Regn. No. HR-03-Q-3630 on 06.07.2014, registered with Registration Authority, Panchkula (Haryana). It was stated that the complainant also got the NOC for the transfer of the said car to Chandigarh on 20.07.2014. It was further stated that the complainant completed all the formalities, for the transfer of vehicle, and on 30.07.2014, notice for 45 days was ordered by the Opposite Party and complainant was asked to come on 15.09.2014 i.e. after the expiry of notice period. It was further stated that on 15.09.2014, the complainant was asked to get the vehicle passed and also to get the police report afresh. It was further stated that after completing the desired formalities, finally, on 24.09.2014, the file of the complainant was submitted in the office of the Opposite Party, upon which he was asked to come on 07.10.2014, for depositing the fee for transfer. It was further stated that, however, to the utter surprise of the complainant, on 07.10.2014, the concerned officials in the office of the Opposite Party informed him that since the road tax had been revised w.e.f. 01.10.2014, instead of Rs.2,200/- approx. (the earlier road tax), and he (complainant) was required to pay revised road tax of Rs.21,060/-. It was further stated that under compelling circumstances, the complainant paid the said amount to the Opposite Party, on 15.10.2014, vide receipt (Annexure C-1). It was further stated that since the complainant had completed all the formalities and submitted the file in the office of the Opposite Party on 24.09.2014, the revised rates could not be made applicable retrospectively. It was further stated that accordingly, the complainant made a representation to the Opposite Party on 17.11.2014 for refunding back the excess amount of road tax (Annexure C-2), but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

3.         When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Party, to pay Rs.20,000/- illegally charged as road tax alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization of the amount; pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.5,000/- as legal expenses.

4.         The Opposite Party, in its written version, stated that a notification dated 12.09.2014 was issued by the Chandigarh Administration vide which the road tax for re-registration of other State vehicles in Union Territory, Chandigarh was revised and enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2014 (Annexure R-1). It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Party on 31.07.2014 for re-registration of vehicle No.HR03-Q-3630, Make Hyundai i10, Model 2013 in U.T. Chandigarh, which was having registration number of other State and as per the prescribed procedure, the notice for confirmation of No Objection Certificate from the concerned State was issued by the concerned department on 4.8.2014 after taking approval from competent authority. It was further stated that, however, the file submitted by the complainant  was

 

 

returned to him in original on the same date i.e. 31.07.2014. It was further stated that as per the procedure, the complainant was asked to come after completion of 45 days for verification/receipt of No Objection report. The requisite period of 45 days expired on 14.9.2014. It was further stated that the complainant was also required to get his vehicle passed from the competent authority and vehicle Enquiry Report from the office of Sr. Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh. It was further stated that the complainant got his vehicle passing report on 24.9.2014 and submitted the documents on 24.9.2014 with the Opposite Party for necessary approval of competent authority. It was further stated that as per normal practice in the Department of Opposite Party, in cases of re-registration of other State vehicles in U.T. Chandigarh, the approximate time of 10-12 days was being given to the persons to avoid unnecessary harassment. It was further stated that, in the similar manner, the complainant was also given 10-12 days’ time for completion of process of approval of competent authority at the time of submission of file on 24.9.2014 and  he  was  requested  to  come  on  7.10.2014  for

 

collecting the file for further necessary action with clear understanding to check the status after 2-3 days. It was further stated that the file of the complainant was put up before the competent authority on 25.9.2014 and necessary approval was granted by concerned authority on 27.9.2014. It was further stated that, however, the complainant came to Opposite Party only on 7.10.2014 and never checked the status as per understanding given to him. It was further stated that, moreover, the notification dated 12.9.2014 was well publicized and after the cut-off date i.e. 1.10.2014, re-registration of vehicles was required to be charged as per revised rates. It was further stated that the complainant ought to have been aware of the said notification but he never raised any objection at the relevant time i.e. on 24.9.2014. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.         The complainant filed replication, wherein, he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint and repudiated the same, contained in the written versions of the Opposite Party. 

6.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

7.         After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

8.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

9.         We have heard the Govt. Pleader for the appellant and the respondent in person and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

10.       The Govt. Pleader for the appellant/Opposite Party submitted that the file of the respondent/complainant was returned to him on 31.07.2014 itself and he was asked to come after completion of 45 days for verification/receipt of the report of No Objection Certificate, which period expired on 14.09.2014. The respondent/complainant submitted the file again on 24.09.2014, after obtaining vehicle passing report. He further submitted that necessary approval was granted on 27.09.2014. He further submitted that, however, the respondent/complainant came to the Opposite Party on 7.10.2014 and never checked the status as per understanding given to him to check the status after 2-3 days. He further submitted that as per notification dated 12.09.2014, which was publicized, after the cut-off date i.e. 1.10.2014, re-registration of the vehicles was to be regulated as per revised enhanced rates. He further submitted that the order passed by the District Forum was, thus, liable to be set aside being unsustainable in the eyes of law. 

11.       The respondent/complainant in person submitted that he complied with all the directions of the appellant/Opposite Party, given to him, and submitted complete file in the office of the appellant/Opposite Party and he was asked to come on 7.10.2014. He further submitted that he did not receive any intimation from the appellant/Opposite Party that his file was approved by the concerned authority on 27.09.2014. He further submitted that on account of deficiency on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party, he was made to suffer by paying a sum of Rs.19,000/- approximately to the appellant/Opposite Party. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum was just and correct and the same deserved to be upheld.

12.       It is evident from record that the respondent/complainant in order to get his Hyundai i10 car Model 2013, (registered with the Registering Authority, Panchkula, having Registration No.HR-03-Q-3630), applied for registration/No Objection Certificate, which was granted by the appellant/Opposite Party on 04.08.2014 and he was asked to come after completion of 45 days for verification/receipt of report of No Objection Certificate. After expiry of 45 days period on 14.09.2014, respondent/complainant got his vehicle passing report from the competent authority on 24.09.2014 and submitted the documents the same day with the appellant/Opposite Party for necessary approval of the competent authority. The respondent/complainant was given a slip to come on 7.10.2014 for collecting the file for further necessary action.

13.       As per notification dated 12.09.2014, the rates for registration of vehicles, already registered in other States were enhanced w.e.f. 1.10.2014. Clearly when all the formalities were completed by the respondent/ complainant and the file was also approved by the competent authority on 27.09.2014, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party to inform the respondent/complainant to deposit the charges. Had it been done, the respondent/complainant would have deposited the charges before 30.9.2014. The plea of the appellant/Opposite Party that the respondent/ complainant was asked to check up status after 2-3 days is apparently an afterthought premise and the same seems to have been coined to wriggle out of its deficiency. When the respondent/complainant has been all through acting as per the advice given by the appellant/Opposite Party, it is not believable that he would not act accordingly, moreso when the revised enhanced charges were to come in force w.e.f. 1.10.2014. When the complainant had submitted complete file on 24.9.2014, considering the fact that new rates with significant increase were to come into force w.e.f. 1.10.2014, in all fairness, the appellant/Opposite Party ought to have given date to the respondent/complainant before 30.9.2014. The District Forum, while holding the appellant/Opposite Party deficient in rendering service, in Para 7 of its order, was perfectly right in holding “A careful perusal of the file reveals that all the formalities were completed by the Complainant earlier than the cut-off date of the notification. As the case of the Complainant was pending and had been approved by the competent authority on 24.09.2014, the Complainant should have been communicated by the Opposite Party by way of telephone, e-mail or registered A.D. However, no such proof has been produced on record by the Opposite Party that they had ever informed the Complainant about depositing the fees before 30.09.2014. We have also perused the contents of the notification placed on record by the Opposite Party at Annexure R-1. There is no mention of the procedure as to how the pending cases shall be dealt with or which have been submitted and are in process.” The District Forum was, thus, right in allowing the complaint against the appellant/Opposite Party and it rightly directed the appellant/Opposite Party to refund the excess road tax

charged from the respondent/complainant besides ordering for Rs.6,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be upheld.

14.       No other point was urged by the Govt. Pleader for the appellant/Opposite Party and the respondent/complainant in person.

15.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any substance, is dismissed with no order as to cost. The impugned order dated 04.06.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

16.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.       The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced.

October  06, 2015

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

Ad

 

 

STATE COMMISSION

 

(First Appeal No.212 of 2015)

 

 

[ The Registration & Licensing Officer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh  

Vs.

Maninder Jit Singh]

 

 

Argued by:

 

Sh. Jatinder Singh, Govt. Pleader for the appellant.

Sh. Maninder Jit Singh, respondent in person.

 

Dated the  6^th day of October, 2015

 

 

ORDER

 

            Service is complete.

2.         Sh. Maninder Jit Singh, respondent in person has put in appearance.

3.         Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 46 days as per the applicant/appellant (as per the office report 48 days) in filing the same (appeal) has been moved.

4.         Heard.

5.         Sh. Maninder Jit Singh, respondent in person neither contested the application aforesaid nor filed any reply to the same.

6.         For the reasons recorded in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the delay aforesaid in filing the appeal is condoned.

7.         The application is disposed of accordingly.

8.         Another application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for placing on record, certain documents, by way of additional evidence has been moved by the appellant, on the ground, that the same are essential for the just decision of appeal.

9.         Heard on the application aforesaid.

10.       It may be stated here, that the documents, sought to be placed, on record, by way of additional evidence, were very much, in the knowledge of the appellant, when it was leading evidence, in the District Forum. In case, at this stage, the application for placing, on record, the documents, aforesaid, by way of additional evidence, is allowed, that will delay the disposal of appeal, thereby defeating the very purpose of the provisions of Section 13 (3A), of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stipulating the specific time, for the disposal of Consumer Disputes. Thus, there is no justification, whatsoever, to allow the application, for placing, on record, the aforesaid documents, by way of additional evidence, at this stage. The application is accordingly dismissed.

11.       Arguments in the main appeal heard.

12.       Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal, being devoid of any substance, has been dismissed with no order as to cost. The impugned order dated 04.06.2015 passed by the District Forum is upheld.

13.       Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free or charge.

 

 

  

Sd/- (DEV RAJ) MEMBER

Sd/-   (JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

Sd/- (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

Ad