Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/9

Saminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prestige Honda Lally MOtor - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Manpreet Singh

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

\DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/9 of 6.1.2015

                                      Decided on:         8.6.2015

 

Saminder Singh son of Sh.Inderjit Singh, resident of E-521, Azad Nagar, Sirhind Road, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Prestige Honda, Lally Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura Patiala Road, Near Highway Filling Station, Bahadurgarh, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………….Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:    Sh.Manpreet Singh, Advocate

For Op:                         Sh.Rajan Verma, Advocate            

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased a new car make Honda Amaze  from the Op on 28.9.2014 having made the total payment of Rs.6,10,685/- vide demand draft No.201258 dated 30.9.2014 including the price of the car at Rs.5,72,500/-, Rs.34185/- the charges for the permanent registration of the vehicle and Rs.4000/- towards logistic charges, in respect of which the op had issued receipt No.2143 dated 1.10.2014.
2. The Op issued the temporary certificate of registration bearing No.PB-11-(Temp)ZJ-1738 valid upto 27.10.2014.
3. The Op deliberately failed to remit the amount towards the registration of the vehicle with the concerned authority till 27.10.2014 knowingfully well that the temporary RC had to expire on 27.10.2014.The Op failed to inform the Op that it could not deposit the amount in time and rather it utilized the amount for their business purpose. The complainant remained under the impression that the amount  had been credited to the account of the Transport Department of the State Govt. on-line .
4. On 27.10.2014, when the complainant asked the Op for the permanent certificate  of registration, it demand a sum of Rs.10,018/- more on the ground that the State Govt. vide notification dated 1.10.2014 had revised the rates and the complainant relying  upon the said version deposited a sum of Rs.10,018/- in favor of the Op through NEFT on 27.10.2014, in respect of which the complainant was issued receipt No.2399 dated 28.10.2014. However, despite the receipt of the said amount, the Op did not bother to deposit the same in favor of the Transport Department of the State Govt., which was deposited on 1.11.2014.
5. A few days thereafter the complainant had come to know that  the State Govt. had revised the registration charges of the vehicles w.e.f.8.10.2014 and the Op got the amount of the demand draft No.201258 dated 30.9.2014 credited into it’s account on 4.10.2014 but the Op failed to deposit the registration charges on-line with the Transport Department of the State Govt. and thus, the complainant had to suffer the loss of Rs.10,018/- as also the interest thereon because of the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Op. The complainant got the Op served with a legal notice dated 12.12.2014 on account of the said negligence and in reply thereto, it was admitted by the Op that  it had received the amount of Rs.6,10,682/- vide demand draft No.221258 on 4.10.2014 and that the registration charges were deposited by it on-line on 1.11.2014.The complainant approached the Op for the reimbursement of the charges of Rs.10,018/- but the Op put the matter off under one or the other pretext. Describing the act of the Op in not having deposited the registration charges with the Transport Department of the State Govt. in time, to be a deficiency in service, the complainant  brought this complaint against the Op for giving a direction to refund an amount of Rs.10,018/- with interest @12% per annum and further to award him Rs.5000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and the mental agony experienced by him and further to award him Rs.5500/-towards litigation expenses.
6. On notice, Op appeared and filed the written version. The Op has admitted the sale of the car make Honda Amaze  made by it in favor of the complainant on 28.9.2014. It has further admitted the receipt of demand draft No.221258, the amount in respect of which was credited into its account on 4.10.2014.The Op had received the registration/tax  amount which prevailed  at the time of the sale of the vehicle. It is denied that the Op had deliberately and intentionally not deposited the same with the Transport Department. Before the said amount could be deposited by the Op, the State Govt. had enhanced the tax. The Op had never anticipated such an enhancement. The Op informed the complainant through courier service regarding the enhancement of the tax on 20.10.2014. The Op had also taken the initiative to fight against the un-precedented hike in the tax by the State Govt. and in this regard, the auto dealer association  held the meetings regarding the same so as to raise their protest in that the notification was issued  without any notice. The matter had also appeared in the news papers. It is denied that the amount deposited by the complainant was utilized by the Op for its business purposes. It is denied that the revision of the tax was communicated on 1.10.2014 rather the same was made vide notification dated 7.10.2014. The Op has admitted the deposit of Rs.10,018/- made by the complainant vide NEFT. The tax regarding the vehicle of the complainant was deposited with the Transport Department on 28.10.2014.
7. It is also the plea taken up by the Op that after delivery of the vehicle made to the customer, the Op requires a time of one week to process the matter with the Registering Authority because the Op is burdened with the work of deposit of the tax in respect of various customers and a procedure has to be followed as explained in the Annexure F. Moreover, the tax is deposited on-line  after all the documents to be submitted to the Registering Authority are complete in all respects. The list of such documents is given in Annexure G.The preparation of the RC calls for the co-operation and co-ordination of various departments of the Op with the Registering Authority. There were holidays in the Govt. offices on 2^nd October to 6^th October and even the dealership of the Op remained closed on 2^nd October due to Gandhi Jayanti.3^rd October was the holiday of Dussehra.4^th October was working hours but office of the Registering Authority was closed it being Saturday.5^th October was Sunday. On 6^th October , it was the holiday of Eid and  office of the Registering authority was closed. Because of the aforesaid  holidays the tax deposit transaction could not be carried out by the accounts branch of the op between 30 September to 6^th October. The document depicting the tax deposit during the said period is produced as Annexure 1.The legal notice sent by the complainant was duly replied vide Annexure J.
8. It is further averred that the tax was deposited on-line on 28.10.2014 and after depositing of the same, some documents were generated on-line i.e (a) RC detail (b) form No.21 (c) Form No.20 and (d) cash receipt. After denouncing the other allegations of the complaint, going against the Op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence, Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C11 and his counsel closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the Op, it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Ashok Verma Sr.ASM(Sales) of the Op , Ex.OP2, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Pankaj  Mohan Sharma working as SSIC with the  Op along with documents Exs.OP1 to OP14 and closed the evidence.
11. The Op filed the written arguments. We have examined he same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
12. Ex.C1 is the proforma invoice dated 21.9.2014, vide which the complainant was obliged to deposit a sum of Rs.6,44,805/- i.e. Rs.5,85,500/- towards the price of the vehicle, Rs.4000/- towards logistic charges, Rs.21,120/-towards insurance of the vehicle and Rs.34185/- towards the registration of the vehicle. Ex.C2 is the copy of receipt No.2143 dated 1.10.2014 issued by the Op in favor of the complainant regarding the receipt of Rs.6,10,685/- i.e. cheque No.201258 dated 30.9.2014 of Punjab & Sind Bank for the price of the car i.e. Rs.5,72,500/-, Rs.34185/- towards registration charges and Rs.4000/-towards logistic charges.
13. Ex.C3 is the copy of the temporary certificate of registration bearing No.PB-11(Temp.)ZJ 1738  valid for the period 28.9.2014 to 27.10.2014 , issued in the name of the complainant,  in respect of the vehicle make Honda Amaze SMT(1.2).
14. It was submitted by Sh.Manpreet Singh, the learned counsel for the complainant that the Op having got the amount of the demand draft encashed on 4.10.2014, as stated by the complainant in para no.9 of the complaint, a fact not having been denied by the Op, it was for the Op to have furnished its explanation as to why the amount of Rs.34185/- towards the registration charges could not be deposited with the Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority, Patiala from 5^th October,2014 to 7^th October,2014,particularly when the amount had to be deposited by the Op on-line with the Transport Department.
15. It was also submitted by Sh.Manpreet Singh, that the Op has produced in evidence Ex.OP13, the copy of the deposits made by the Op on-line with the Punjab Transport Department and a deposit is shown to have been made on 7.10.2014 in respect of one Jaswinder Singh Rosha, in respect of his vehicle make Honda City bearing registration No.PB-10-EW-3111 having deposited an amount of Rs.65092/- but no evidence is lead by the Op as to when the vehicle was sold to said Sh.Jaswinder Singh Rosha i.e. whether the same was sold before the complainant or thereafter. If the Op could deposit the registration charges on-line  in respect of said Sh.Jaswinder Singh Rosha on 7.10.2014, why the registration charges of the complainant could not be deposited upto 7.10.2014, particularly when the Op had got the amount of the registration charges credited into its account on 4.10.2014 and therefore, it was submitted that the complainant had unnecessarily been burdened with the amount of Rs.10,018/- on account of enhancement of the motor vehicle tax raised from 6% to 8% vide notification No.3/2/2011-2T2/17 dated 7^th October,2014( copy Ex.C10) and the complainant is entitled to the refund of the same with interest.
16. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh.Rajan Verma, the learned counsel for the Op that the Op had no malafide intention in depositing the  registration charges, in respect of the vehicle of the complainant with the Transport Department of the State Govt. on 28.10.2014 and rather all this occurred because of the Op being burdened with the deposit of the tax of various customers who had purchased the vehicles from it and that the Op had to follow the procedure in the matter of depositing the tax as provided in the chart Ex.OP10.
17. It was also submitted by Sh.Verma that the Op had never anticipated the enhancement of the motor vehicle tax to be deposited by a purchaser of the vehicle and that the enhancement had taken place abruptly vide notification dated 7^th October,2014( Ex.C10), for which the Op should not be blamed.
18. We have considered the submissions and are of the considered view that the Op from the very start  of the transaction regarding the sale of the vehicle had conveyed the complainant regarding the registration charges of Rs.34185/- to be deposited with it as would appear from  proforma invoice,Ex.C1 dated 21.9.2014 and the complainant deposited the same with the Op vide receipt,Ex.C2 dated 1.10.2014 and even the Op got cheque/draft No.201258 dated 30.9.2014 encahsed on 4.10.2014 and in that way the Op had a sufficient time of three days for depositing the amount of the registration charges with the Transport Department of the State Govt. on behalf of the complainant on-line but no explanation  has been furnished as to why the same could not be deposited upto 7.10.2014, particularly when the Op deposited the registration charges on 7.10.2014 on behalf of one Sh.Jaswinder Singh Rosha, as would appear from Ex.OP13.No deposit is shown to have been made by the Op with the Transport Department on-line from 4/10 to 6.10.2014.When the amount has to be deposited with the Transport Department on-line, the Op could not take the shelter of there being the holidays in the office of the Motor Vehicle(Registering) Authority during the period 2.10.2014to 6.10.2014.No evidence is lead by the Op that any attempt was made by it to deposit the amount on-line during the period 4/10 to 7/10/2014 and because of any problem the same could not be deposited, meaning therey that the Op had intentionally not deposited the amount of the registration charges deposited by the complainant with it in order to make a use of the amount of the complainant for other commercial purposes. A consumer has not to be burdened with for no fault of him. We are of the considered view that when the op had delivered the vehicle to the complainant on 28.9.2014 and the Op having got the amount from the complainant vide receipt Ex.C2 and even the cheque /demand draft of Rs.5,72,500/- having been got encashed on 4.10.2014, it was for the Op to have explained the non deposit of the amount from 5/10 to 7/10 with the Transport Department but we find that the Op has failed to give any plausible explanation in this regard. The Op should not have demanded the amount of Rs.10,018/- from the complainant on account of the enhancement in the tax by virtue of the notification dated 7.10.2014 as there was no fault on the part of the complainant. We therefore, accept the complaint and direct the Op to refund the amount of Rs.10,018/- received from the complainant towards the enhancement of the tax , with interest @9% per annum from the date of the deposit i.e. 28.10.2014 as would appear from the receipt,Ex.C4.In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, the same is accepted with costs assessed at Rs.4000/-.The order be complied by the Op within one month on receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Pronounced

Dated:8.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                 Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                         Member                                  President