JUDGEMENT
( Passed this on 17th April, 2018)
Shri Shekhar P. Muley, President
01. This complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act is filed against a car dealer and manufacturer alleging unfair trade practice for demanding excess tax on the car.
02. The O.P. 2 is manufacturer of Chevrolet cars and O.P.1 is its authorized dealer. The complainant purchased one Chevrolet Captiva LT model car from the O.P.1 on 17/5/2010 and it was delivered to him after completing formalities on next day. The on road price of the car was Rs. 20,11,201/- including VAT @ 12.5%. One time road tax was Rs. 1,45,002/- besides other charges. The complainant paid all the amount. It was registered by Regional Transport Office (RTO) (which was earlier OP1 and later deleted) with number MH-31-DG-0101. On 31/10/2012 when the complainant was on Haj tour, a person claiming to be employee of the RTO, sought inspection of the car and its documents for RTO tax enquiry. The complainant had already paid RTO tax as per demand of the O.P.1 and tax was assessed and duly received by RTO. At the relevant time neither the car not documents were in custody of the person at complainantś place, hence the same could not be shown. Immediately thereafter, said person issued the copy of inspection report at the complainantś place. He was instructed to pay Rs. 2,26,205/- to RTO alleging it to be due tax as per office order. The complainant was totally unaware of any such office order nor was he informed of any such proceeding. Yet he was accused of non payment of RTO tax. The person in complainantś office was called upon to attend RTO and pay the tax dues immediately, else to suffer seizer of the car. After return from Haj, the complainant submitted his explanation to RTO. The OP1 had declared on road price of the car and one time RTO tax was paid. Thus after paying all inclusive on road price of the car and tax assessed by RTO, he had no role to play in registration of the car, which was between RTO and OP1. All necessary documents and forms were filled in by the OP1 for submitting the same to RTO.
03. The complainant later came to know from newspaper that RTO claimed that the car was imported and the O.P.1 while submitting application form for registration of the car with RTO left the column of ¨Make¨ blank. It is to be mentioned whether the vehicle is Indian or Imported. During internal audit it was revealed the said car was imported. Tax on imported vehicle is double the tax payable on Indian vehicle. RTO accordingly assessed difference of tax and notices were issued to all purchasers of such cars. RTO is seizing all such cars in order to compel the owners to pay difference of tax amount with penalty. Declaration as to the said car being imported should have been made by the O.P.-1 in the application for registartion. The complainant had filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 1931/2013 against RTO and others, in which while staying notice action of RTO, he was directed todeposit Rs. 1,50,000/-.He has deposited that amount with RTO. He is not liable to pay any amount over and above to what was quoted by O.P.2 before he purchased the car, it is alleged that the OPs are liable to refund that amount with interest. On 5/3/2013 RTO illegally seized his car. Alleging the action of the OPs arbitrary and unfair trade practise, it is prayed to direct the OPs to refund that amount with interest along with compensation and cost, and direct the RTO to release his car
04 The O.P.1 filed written reply at Ex.11 and has admitted purchase of the car from its showroom by the complainant. It is stated it was for the manufacturing company to reveal details of the make of the vehicle and invoices, which were delivered to it. Believing upon the same, it forwarded to RTO for registering the car. The liability to pay tax is of the purchaser. There was no intention to to make more money by deceiving customers. This O.P. himself has paid difference in tax under protest on his vehicle of the same make. Even this O.P. was not aware about the said car and its make as invoices given to it by the O.P.2 did not reveal the same. Therefore this O.P. cannot be held responsible as he equally has suffered. Denying all other averments for want of knowledge, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
05. The O.P.2 filed reply at Ex.15 and stated the car in question was not manufactured in India, but imported from South Korea. The OP1 is not its dealer or agent, but it acts on principal to principal basis. All vehicles that are sold to O.P.1 by this O.P. have their manufacturer stated and declared in accordance with statutory provisions. Taxes payable are advised by the O.P.1 in consultation with RTO and not by this O.P. The said car already carries a chassis no, the first two digits of which declare the country of manufacturer. This O.P. has not given incorrect advice as to tax to the complainant. The duty to get a vehicle registered is of the purchaser and not of the O.P.1. Hence it is for the complainant to get ascertained the amount of taxes required to be paid. This O.P. by chassis number has declared the make of the car. Denying any liability and deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
06. Heard the counsel for the complainant and O.P.2. None appeared for the O.P.1. Perused documents. We record our findings with reasons as under.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
07. A short question that arises for our consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay additional tax on the imported car, subsequently after paying all the taxes as per advice of the O.P.1. It is not in dispute the car was imported from South Korea and as per the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, tax on imported vehicles is double the amout of tax payable on Indiam made vehicle.
08. RTO assesses tax on different types of vehicles and owner is required to pay the tax accordingly. Generally it is the dealer of vehicles, who fill in the registration form and advises the owner how much tax is to be paid. In this case the OPs are blaming the complainant that he did not disclose the make of his car while filling registration form and therefore it was registered as Indian made car and accordingly tax was assessed and paid. Subsequently it was revealed that the car was imported and therefore additional tax was assessed and demanded from him. This has been challenged in this complaint.
09. Before considering the liability of paying additional tax, it is to be noted that RTO which was earlier a party to this proceedings, was subsequently deleted. Therefore now no order or direction can be given to RTO. Another point is that the Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in Ford India Ltd v/s St. Of Mah & Othrs, W.P. No. 1729/2003 Dated 11/2/2011 has held that there could not be classification between imported and Indian made vehicles for the purpose of imposing tax. In that petition the provisions of Section 3 (1D) (c) (ii) of the Bombay M.V. Tax Act, 1958 were challenged as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, because there is no justification for classifying vehicles on the basis of the country in which they are made for the purpose of imposing the vehicle tax. Allowing the petition, the RTO was directed to refund the amount of tax recovered in excess from the petitioner.
10. The counsel for the complainant, relying on this judgment, has urged to consider the prayer of the complainant. However, it may also be noted that the RTO, before its deletion, had filed its reply and stated that the above referred decision of the Bombay High Court has been challenged in Supreme Court and stay has been granted, though no copy of stay order is placed on record. But the fact is that imported vehicle still levied with double tax. Payment of road tax on vehicle is statutory liability. Therefore, it is wrong to say that demand of tax by RTO is illegal. Additional tax paid by the complainant, therefore, cannot be directed to be refunded to him. However, he is entitled to claim compensation for mental agony which he had to undergo for no fault of him.
11. Some other aspects of the case may also be examined. It is submitted that every vehicle comes with chassis number and first two digits of that number represent country of manufacturer of that vehicle. In the present case as per the chassis number the said car was made in South Korea and this is not in dispute. Here, we fail to comprehend how could the RTO fail to notice the chassis number when it was brought to it for registration. Even from the papers of the car it could easily have noticed that the car was imported one and accordingly tax should have been assessed. We do not accept that the complainant was at fault in this respect for he left the column ¨make of the car¨ blanck. It is general experience that the dealer of vehicle fills in forms, because a purchaser is not expected to know what is the tax and other charges. All this information is provided by the dealer. Though we agree that liability to pay tax is of the purchaser, but responsibility to apprise him of amount of tax to be paid is of the dealer. The tax invoice was given by the OP1 and amount of tax payable is mentioned therein. It was accordingly paid. As a matter of fact, it was for the OP1 to clarify who filled in the registration form and who was at fault in leaving the column of ¨make¨ blanck.
12. One order in WP No. 1931/2013 Hasan Khuzema Shafiq v/s St. of Mah. Dated 3/9/2013 it has been observed that there is alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Bombay M.V. Tax Act, 1958 against assessment of tax by the RTO. On that ground the petition of challenging the assessment of tax was disposed of. So, in view of this order the RTO had sought to get the complaint dismissed. The provisions of the C.P. Act are in addition to any other law, therefore, consumer complaint is maintainable.
13. In not giving clear invoice of the car by the O.P.2 to the O.P.1, even the O.P. 2 is also responsible for the harassment suffered by the complainant. It is the duty of the manufacturer to quote correctly the price of car including country of manufacturer. The invoice of the car was therefore not correct and so tax was wrongly assessed. In our opinion, both the OPs are liable to pay damages.
14. In the result, we allow the complaint. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. Both Opposite Parties are directed to pay, jointly and severally, compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (In words Rupees One Lac only) for mental agony and litigation cost Rs. 5000/- (In words Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant.
3. The order shall be complied by the both the Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days from receipt of order.
4. Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
