BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.09 of 2015

Date of Instt. 09.01.2015

Date of Decision :16.04.2015

Poonam Narang W/o Ravinder Narang R/o H.No.5 Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Lally Motors Pvt Ltd, Paragpur, GT Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/Managing Director.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Vijay Prabhakar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.MS Sethi Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party on the averments that the opposite party is the authorized dealer of Prestige Honda and the complainant has purchased a car City Honda, vide invoice No.611 dated 1.10.2014 amounting to Rs.11,30,000/-. The complainant obtained a Performa Invoice cum Quotation from the showroom of the opposite party, vide Sr.No.432 dated 27.9.2014. As per this performa invoice the complainant had to pay Rs.11,30,000/- as Ex-showroom price of the car alongwith Rs.4000/- as logistic charges, Rs.35845/- as insurance charges and Rs.62968/- as tax @ Rs.6% and registration charges etc which total comes to Rs.12,49,212/-. Out of this amount of Rs.51000/- was paid by the complainant as advance and the complainant had to pay Rs.11,98,212/-. The complainant made the above said payment vide bank draft No.966062 dated 29.9.2014 amounting Rs.11,98,212/- drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, New Sabzi Mandi, Jalandhar in favour of Lally Motors Pvt Ltd. It is mentioned that the complainant had purchased the car on 1.10.2014 and had made the payment vide D.D.dated 29.9.2014 but the complainant was shocked enough to receive a demand notice from the opposite party vide which the complainant has been directed to pay more money as increased tax while alleging that Punjab Government increased the Vat vide notification on 7.10.2014. When the complainant refused to make the illegal payment the opposite party refused to issue all the papers like R.C etc of the vehicle. Then the complainant alongwith her family had to go out of station, where she was stopped by the traffic police. She and her family were humiliated by the traffic police for want of documents. The police was going to impound the vehicle but she managed the situation with great difficulty. Under the compelled circumstances the complainant had to pay Rs.19770/- vide receipt No.9912 dated 22.11.2014. Only then the documents were delivered to her. When the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired the matter she was told that the state government had increased the tax from 6% to 8% w.e.f from 7.10.2014. The complainant told the opposite party that she has purchased the vehicle on 1.10.2014 so any increase from 7.10.2014 can not be applicable on the vehicle sold on 1.10.2014. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.19770/-. She has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objection regarding complainant being not consumer. It further pleaded that said amount of Rs.19770/- has been paid as increased tax and she sought relief of Rs.19770/- as such dispute involving matter of tax is outside the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986. There is no dispute of rendering of deficient services etc by the opposite party as such complaint is not maintainable. In fact complaint clearly disclose that paying of Rs.19770/- as tax was under specific knowledge of the complainant that same was increased by the Punjab Government vide notification dated 7.10.2014. Increase of tax w.e.f 7.10.2014 is also applicable on the vehicle sold on 1.10.2014 due to certain reason like if entire payment is made in cash as well as one week time to process all the relevant document required to be furnished with registration authority if same is supplied by the customer in time also whereas in the present case DD for Rs.1198212/- was received by the opposite party on 1.10.2014 afternoon and there was government holiday between 2nd to 6th October and dealership was also closed on 2nd October on the ground of Gandhi Jayanti and on 3th October on account of Dushera. On 4th day dealership was working and the opposite party deposited the DD as submitted by the complainant but no work of registration could be performed due to Saturday and Sunday and registration office was closed. The bank also credited the DD amount only 7.10.2014 into the account of the opposite party. The opposite party was having one month time for applying registration certificate from the date of sale but State Government increased the road tax vide notification on 7.10.2014 with immediate effect, so opposite party is in no way responsible for delaying the matter which was not in hands and control of the opposite party. The complainant was informed on the same day and apprised with the latest position and circumstances and it was promised by the complainant in paying the tax amount to the opposite party but on delaying the matter by the complainant as well as for want of VIP number. The opposite party also wrote letter on the above facts to the complainant as admitted by the complainant in its complaint also. However amount of Rs.19770/- was paid to the complainant on 22.11.2014 and it stand deposited with government on 24.11.2014 and the complainant submitted the relevant identify proof and signed documents for registration purpose only on 25.11.2014 but said file was taken by the complainant for submitting with DTO office due to want of VIP number and duly submitted the undertaking dated 5.11.2014 in writing as under:-

"I am fully responsible for road tax changes, any penalty. Other legal issue which will occurred due to delay apply of RC(due to above choice of no.)".

3. The dealership is not responsible for any issue occurred due to delay apply of RC and choice of number is subject of availability on online transport website. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to C9 and closed evidence

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavits Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP/2 and closed evidence.

6 We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7. The dispute between the parties is regarding amount of Rs.19770/- paid by complainant to the opposite party due to increase in road tax from 6% to 8% by the State Government w.e.f 7.10.2014. The complainant purchased the car on 1.10.2014 vide invoice Ex.C1. Counsel for the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and as such the complainant can not be treated as consumer. He further contended that the dispute regarding tax does not fall within purview of the consumer court. He further contended that opposite party had paid road tax which was increased by the State Government and complainant was bound to pay the same. He further contended that payment of tax to the Government can not be considered as consideration for services. In support of above contentions, he has relied upon Charanjit Kaur Vs Manjit Kaur, Appeal No.336 of 1997 decided on 29.7.1998 by Hon'ble State Commission, Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Dada Motors Pvt Ltd, First Appeal No.46 of 2013 decided on 18.11.2014 by Hon'ble State Commission, C.Prahlada Setty Vs Sus-Registrar, Siruguppa & Anr, III(1993) CPJ 1795, Calcutta Municipal Corporation Vs Dr.Apurba Kumar Basu & Anr, II (1996) CPJ 186 (NC), Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Durg.(C.G.) Vs P.S.Chauhan Revision Petition No.933 of 2008 decided on 18.2.2014 by Hon'ble National Commission.

7. We have carefully considered the above contentions advanced by learned counsel for opposite party. The above cited authorities are on its own facts and in different context and not attracted in this case. The opposite party was required to deposit the registration charges with State Government on the same day online but it failed to do so. In the mean time registration charges were increased from 6% to 8% and due to this reason opposite party demanded Rs.19770/- which was paid by the complainant on 22.11.2014 to get the RC. So far as undertaking Ex.OP/2 is concerned, the same was given by the complainant subsequently. Notification dated 28.6.2014 issued by Government of Punjab Department of Transport provides as under:-

"That no vehicle which is sold by the dealer and any native of Punjab shall be allowed to be driven/taken out of the showroom unless the temporary registration number is allotted to the vehicle by the dealer after getting the registration fee, HPA fee and the Motor Vehicles Tax(in lump sum) as fixed by the Government from time to time. The Motor Vehicles Tax and fee etc received from the purchaser/owner of the vehicle shall be deposited online system into the State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day by the dealer".

8. So as per above notification, the dealer is required to deposit the registration charges online into State Bank of India under the relevant head on the same day. Since the opposite party failed to deposit the registration charges on the same day, as such the complainant can not be blamed, if subsequently the State Government has enhanced the registration fee from 6% to 8%. Non depositing of registration charges on the same day as per the above notification, constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. In these circumstances, the complainant having purchased the car and paid registration charges is to be considered as consumer and the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party to the contrary in this regard is without any merit. As per above notification, the dealer is not supposed to allow the customer to drive or take out of the care from the showroom unless the dealer allot temporary registration number after getting registration fees etc. The registration fees so received from the owner of the vehicle is supposed to be deposited by the dealer online into State Bank of India on the same day. The opposite party failed to do so. So it constitute deficiency in service as already observed above.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite party is directed to refund Rs.19770/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.3000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after the expiry of said period of 15 days till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.04.2015 Member Member President