In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/178/2022.
Date of filing: 31/08/2022. Date of Final Order: 18/11/2024.
Bhaskar Das,
Address: Vinayak Apartment, Strand Road By Lane,
Chandannagar P.O.- Chandannagar,
Chandannagar, Dist. Hooghly,
State-West Bengal, Pincode-712136. ……complainant
vs
- R.T.O. SATNA
Address: C/o, RTO Office,
P.O.-Head Post Office Satna,
P.S. Satna Kotwali, Dist. Satna,
State-Madhya Pradesh, Pincode-485001.
- R.T.O. HOOGHLY
Address: C/o, Motor Vehicle Section,
Office of the District Magistrate,
P.O.- Chinsurah, P.S. Chinsurah,
Dist. Hooghly, State-West Bengal, Pincode-712102.
…….opposite parties
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that his Ford Ecosport SUV, a non-transport vehicle, bearing Registration No. MP-19CB-0702, which purchased, by paying "ONE-TIME TAX of Rs.66,666/-(dated 27.06.2014)", at-RTO, Satna, M.P., is Re-Registered at RTO, Hooghly, W.B.
After receiving necessary 'Vehicle NOC' from RTO-Satna on 18.10.2021. His Application dt. 23.10.21 requesting RTO-Hooghly for re-registration & assigning a new registration mark along with necessary documents have been submitted to RTO-Hooghly office on 25.10.21(Monday) since, their weekly off days are Saturday & Sunday i.e. 23.10.21 & 24.10.21), through an agent. But, application receiving date shown by RTO-Hooghly as 03.11.2021.
Re-registration has been done at RTO-Hooghly by paying Again ONE-TIME TAX of Rs. 51,840/-(inclusive all) vide "Receipt dated 02.02.2022".
The Vehicle was Registered at RTO, Satna in the "JOINT NAME of 'Prism Cement & Bhaskar Das" on 07.07.2014 under the Company's car scheme. Later, First named owner pulled out from their ownership and 2nd owner Bhaskar Das became the Sole owner of the vehicle. The Old Registration Card has been replaced/ transferred by RTO-Satna through a "New Registration Card" dt. 26.05.2015 in the Sole name of Bhashkar Das. Necessary NOC has been given by the Company M/s. Prism Cement Ltd.(Presently renamed as Prism Johnson Ltd.) in favour of the Bhaskar Das, the 2nd holder of the vehicle”, in this regard.
In accordance to the 'MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) Directive/ Guideline regarding 'Inter State Transfer of Non-Transport Vehicle'- when New Registration Mark Transfer of Non- Transport Vehicle is applied to another State, the New State would demand prorata tax for the remainder of the One-Time-Tax-Period and such taxes are to be paid. CORRESPONDING REFUND CAN BE APPLIED IN THE EARLIER STATE.
For getting corresponding refund from earlier state, he had applied to "RTO-Satna through Email dated 14.05.2022" attaching all the Relevant Documents including CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION issued by RTO-Hooghly". But, no reply received till 17.06.2022.
Immediately after Email Communication dated 14.05.22 (as stated in point Sl. No. 4 above), HARD COPY OF THE REFUND APPLICATION ALONG WITH 9 NOS. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SENT TO RTO-SATNA THROUGH SPEED POST DATED 14.05.2022. THE SPEED POST RECEIVED BY RTO-SATNA ON 27.05.2022.
"Email Reminder dated 18.06.2022" sent to RTO-Satna informing non receipt of refund amount and any reply from RTO-Satna and appealed to refund the said amount by 27.06.2022.
Failing to receive any reply and refund from RTO-Satna, till 11.07.2022, Final Appeal has been made to RTO-Satna through "Email (Reminder-2) dated 12.07.2022" for Refunding the said amount and reply, latest by 05.08.2022.
Again, failed to get any reply and refund thereof from RTO-Satna till 30.07.2022. So, this time, complainant appealed to RTO-Hooghly through "E-mail dated 31.07.2022", for extending kind help to him in getting the refund and 'in case of any LATEST AMENDMENT IN MORTH DIRECTIVE/GUIDELINE (which is not known to him) directing Refund to be made by the Re-registering Authority, if any, then, RTO-Hooghly to refund the amount, at the earliest. But, no reply received from RTO-Hooghly as on date.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pass suitable order so that a deprived consumer gets justice and gets refund of Rs. 51840/- and reimbursed cost of litigation.
Defense Case:- The opposite party No. 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the case of this O.P. is that the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. MP 19CB 0702 (now assigned as WB 16BJ 1344) 1.e. the complainant applied to the office of this Q.P. for change of address of his vehicle on the strength of NOC issued by the Registering Authority, satna, M.P.
That on receiving this application, the office of this O.P. started the process for registration on change of address of the vehicle.
That accordingly, registration certificate was handed over to the owner, on completion of all statutory formalities and on realization of necessary fee and tax in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and W.B. Additional Tax and one hue Tax Act, 1989 respectively through VAHAN platform, ac designed by the MORTH, Govt. of India.
That in terms of sub-section 2 of section 988 of the WBAT and OTT Act 1989, life time tax was imposed on the vehicle in question. A rebate amounting to Rs. 36800/- 46% of the total tax was given to the registered owner, as the vehicle was brought to the state almost after 8 years later from its initial registration as per part 1B of a schedule IV of the aforesaid Tax Act.
That in terms of sub-section 4(a) of section 9BB of the said Tax Act, refund of tax is applicable only, if the vehicle is removed from W. Bengal permanently.
That as road tax is a state matter, the Process for refund of rood tax of Madhya Pradesh, on removal of the vehicle from that state, is beyond the knowledge of this op. So, the case of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties even after appearance in this case and after filing written version, have not filed any petition on the ground of nonmaitainability of this case due to the reason best known to them. Under this position this District Commission has passed the order of further hearing of this case. On this background it is also mention worthy that the opposite parties also have not filed any separate petition challenging the maintainability point, jurisdiction point and cause of action issue. The opposite parties in their written version have only pleaded the above noted points. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is a resident of Chandannagar, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Thus, the point of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the opposite parties cannot be accepted. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. The opposite parties also have raised the plea of limitation and in the written version it has been pointed out that this case is barred by limitation. But in this connection it is important to note that the provision of 69 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is very important and according to the provision of Section 69 complaint case can be entertained by the District Commission or State Commission or National Commission even after expiry of 2 years if the complainant satisfies the ld. Commission that he or she has sufficient ground for not filing the case within two years. Moreover in this instant case the cause of action has been continued and thus the above noted plea of the opposite parties which has been pointed out in the written version is also not acceptable. On close examination of the pleadings of the parties it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law. All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the parties and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case.
On comparative studies of the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant with the evidence on affidavit filed by the opposite parties and on close compare of the documents filed by both parties it appears that initially the OP-1&2 have not filed any w/v and so this case proceeded ex parte against both Ops but finally OP-2 appeared and prayed for setting aside ex parte order which is allowed by this District Commission and against the said order the complainant preferred revision before the Hon’ble State Commission but complainant subsequently withdrawn the said revision and as a result of which the said revision which was pending before the Hon’ble State Commission was dismissed. Ultimately OP-2 filed evidence on affidavit and has contested this case. But fact remains that this case is running ex parte against OP-1.
On the background of the above noted position this District Commission after going through the material of this case record and also after scanning the evidence on record finds that the OP-2 already have taken all the steps regarding registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant and it indicates that this complainant has practically no further claim against the OP-2. Moreover, in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and West Bengal Additional Tax and one Due Tax Act 1989, Life Time Tax was imposed on the vehicle in question. And in terms of sub section 4(a) of section 9BB of the said tax Act refund of tax is applicable only if the vehicle is removed from West Bengal permanently. But in this instant case this incident has not been occurred. Considering all these factors this District Commission is of the view that the complainant has failed to establish his case against OP-2 and also this complaint case is liable to be dismissed against OP-2. However, the complainant has proved his case ex parte against OP-1 as because the evidence which is given by the complainant has neither been challenged nor been controverted by OP-1.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has proved her case in respect of all the points of consideration adopted in this case against OP-1 and for that reason the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case in respect of all the points of consideration from OP No-1.
In the result it is accordingly
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 178 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No-2 but allowed ex parte against OP no.1.
OP-1 is directed to refund Rs.51840/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order failing which the complainant is given liberty to execute this award according to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
