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 practise 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 23/11/2009 and it was delivered to him after completing formalities on next day. The price of the car was Rs. 17,62,482/- including VAT @ 12.5%. One time road tax was Rs. 1,42,409/- besides other charges. The complainant paid all the amount. After delivery the car was plied under temporary registration number for some time. Ultimately it was registered by Regional Transport Office (RTO) (which was earlier OP1 and later deleted) with number MH-31-DC-1066. On 5/2/2013 at about 11 a.m. when the complainant was on his way to his premises, some persons claiming to be employees of the RTO, stopped the car and asked him to pay amount as tax dues immediately. He told them he paid all taxes demanded by the O.P.1 and were accepted by the RTO. He told them that the RTO never demanded any tax dues and hence he was not liable to pay alleged tax. However without paying any heeds to him those persons took away his car, directing him to pay alleged tax and detention charges to get his car released. Such detention of car was illegal and arbitrary act. The O.P.1 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 OP1 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. Hence his car was also seized. Declaration as to the said car being imported should have been made by the O.P.1 in the application for registartion. To get the car released the complainant has deposited Rs.2,50,638/- with RTO. Alleging this action of the RTO as well as 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.
04. The O.P.1 failed to file written reply and hence proceeded without Written Statement.
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 O.P.1 is not its dealer or agent, but it acts on principal to principal basis. All vehicles that are sold to OP1 by this OP have their manufacturer stated and declared in accordance with statutory provisions. Taxes payable are advised by the OP1 in consultation with RTO and not by this OP. The said car already carries a chassis no, the first two digits of which declare the country of manufacturer. This OP has not given incorrect advise as to tax to the complainant. The duty to get a vehicle registered is of the purchaser and not of the OP1. 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 practise, it is urged to dismiss the complaint.
06. Heard both the sides. 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 OP1. 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 amount of tax payable on India 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. The OP1, the dealer has not challenged this complaint by filing its reply and as such it has indirectly admitted all the allegations made in the complaint. 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. But by not taking part in the proceedings, the OP1 has virtually admitted its fault.
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 OP2 to the OP1, even the OP2 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
- The complaint is partly allowed.
- 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.
- The order shall be complied by the both Opposite Parties jointly & severally within 45 days from receipt of order.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
