Kerala

Idukki

CC/150/2018

Santhosh E R - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rejimon - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Gem

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :27/07/18

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 150/2018

Between

Complainant : Santhosh E.R., S/o Ramachadran Nair,

Ennasseril House,

Anyartholu P.O., Pampadumpara Village,

Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Gem Korason)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . Nejimon, S/o Jabbar,

Maliakel House,

Kattappana P.O., Idukki Taluk, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Jijo Joseph)

2 . The Regional Transport Officer,

Nedumkandam P.O., Idukki District.

3 . The Deputy Tahsildar (RR),

Nedumkandam, Idukki District.

4 . The Village Officer,

Pampadumpara P.O., Pampadumpara,

Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District.

5 . The Deputy Excise Commissioner,

Office of the Deputy Excise Commissioner,

Idukki District.

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was the owner of Mahindra Pick Up Auto bearing No.KL/17/H/ 38. On 22/07/15, the complainant sold the vehicle to the first opposite party. The vehicle was sold on the assurance and promise from the side of the first opposite party that the ownership will be changed at the earliest.

(Cont.....2)

-2-

 

On 10/04/16, the vehicle was taken in to the custody by the Peermade police alleging that the first opposite party had transported liquor in the vehicle. Since the vehicle was involved in the Abkari offence the confiscation proceedings was started by the fifth opposite party. For that purpose, the 5^th opposite party issued a notice to the complainant as the registered owner of the vehicle on records remain with the complainant. The complainant issued a reply to this notice and requested to proceed against the first opposite party.

 

Matter being so, the complainant got a memo dated 13/12/17 from the 2^nd opposite party demanding Rs.1970/- towards above vehicle tax arrears from the period 01/04/16 to 31/03/18. Complainant properly replied to this memo with records. But the 2^nd opposite party has send the file for revenue recovery proceeding and the opposite parties 3 and 4 had initiated revenue recovery steps against the complainant and the complainant is forced to remit Rs.3,400/- towards Motor Vehicle Tax due.

 

Complainant further averred that, since the vehicle was sold to the first opposite party, he is liable to pay the tax arrears during the period of his possession of the vehicle. It can be seen that the arrears claimed for the period from 01/04/16 to 30/03/18. The vehicle was taken in to custody on 10/04/16 and confiscation proceedings were also started during that period and the same was also completed. Hence it is very clear that the complainant was not having the possession of the vehicle during the said period.

 

The acts of the opposite parties by threatening the complainant to pay the tax due is unfair trade practice. The complainant sustained mental agony out of the act of the opposite parties 1 to 4. The opposite parties 2 to 4 are not entitled to proceed against the complainant as the ownership of the vehicle is with the first opposite party and the vehicle was in the custody of the 5^th opposite party for confiscation proceedings. Since the said matter was informed to the opposite parties further they are not entitled to claim any amount, as the complainant is not legally liable to pay.

 

(Cont.....3)

 

-3-

The acts of the opposite parties 1 to 4 are gross deficiency in their service and unfair trade practice for that the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to declare the complainant is not liable to pay tax arrears of the vehicle No.KL/17/H /38 and direct the first opposite party to change the ownership of the vehicle, direct the opposite party 1 to 4 to return the tax amount which was realized from the complainant, further direct the opposite parties to pay compensation or cost.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and opposite parties 1 and 2 filed detailed reply version. In their version the first opposite party admitted the purchase of the alleged vehicle from the complainant on 22/07/15. But at that time the Registered owner of the vehicle was one Chacko Kurian. At the time of sale, the first opposite party was convinced by the complainant that the RC book of the vehicle was with the RTO office which is submitted for clearance. The opposite parties further contented that he sold this vehicle to one Abdul Salam, Kavunkal, Vandiperiyar on 30/07/15 and he intimated the matter to the complainant. But the complainant has not delivered the original RC book of the vehicle in question and he failed to initiate any steps to change the ownership of the vehicle.

 

The complainant approached this Forum only after the intimation of revenue recovery proceedings and also after three years of the sale of the said vehicle, this complaint cannot be sustainable herein since it is not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. In this matter the first opposite party is having no role and entire default was done by the complainant himself and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the first opposite party.

 

In their reply version, the second opposite party contented that being the registered owner of the vehicle having Reg.No.KL/17/H/38, a notice was sent to the complainant by the second opposite party. On 16/01/18 complainant submitted a reply stating that the vehicle was sold to the first opposite party, but the transfer of ownership of this vehicle was not effected till date, and also stated that this vehicle was seized by the S.I.of police, Peermade on 10/04/16, in connection with an Abkari case. The vehicle was confiscated by the 5^th opposite party and sold it in auction.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

The second opposite party further contented that, as per Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 50(1), where the ownership of any Motor Vehicle registered under the chapter is transferred:-

 

The Transferor shall-

 

(I) In the case of a vehicle registered within the same State within fourteen days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee.

 

Opposite party further contented that the transferor (the complainant) has not submitted any application to effect the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle in their office till date, which is a violation of the above act.

 

As per Rule 57 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, Transfer of Ownership of vehicle purchased in public auction.

 

The person who has acquired or purchased a motor vehicle at a public auction conducted by or on behalf of the Central Government or a State Government shall make an application in Form 32 within 30 days of taking possession of the vehicle to the registering authority.

 

The transfer of ownership of the vehicle is not effected through public auction and the ownership of the vehicle remains same in the name of the complainant.

 

The second opposite party further contented that the complainant failed to submit the reason for non-payment of tax in reply to the demand notice issued from this office on 23/12/17, within the prescribed time limit mentioned in the notice. Under this circumstances Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against the complainant and there is no deficiency in service happened on the part of the opposite party.

 

(Cont.....5)

-5-

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents such as copy of sale agreement dated 22/07/15, copy of notice issued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner, copy of petition filed by the complainant before the SRTO, Udumbanchola, copy of memo dated 13/12/17, copy of reply to the memo, copy of Revenue Recovery notice and copy of tax receipts were marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P7 respectively.

 

From the opposite parties' side, copy of Registration details of the vehicle in question, copy of AD cards, copy of representation given by the first opposite party to the 5^th opposite party, copy of sale left dated 30/07/15, agreement dated 22/07/15, notice dated 02/07/16 are marked as Ext.R1 to Ext.R6 respectively.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:- We have heard the counsels for both sides and had gone through the records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had sold the vehicle having Reg.No.KL/17/H/38 to the first opposite party on 22/07/15 and it is evident from Ext.P1. Immediately after the purchase of the vehicle the first opposite party sold it to one Abdul Salam on 30/07/15. As per records the vehicle was seized by the peermadu police on 10/04/16.

 

In this case it is very pertinent to note that none of the complainant or the first opposite party has intimated the matter of sale and transfer of ownership to the second opposite party, the concerned registering authority as per section 50 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. More over as per the notice averred by the second opposite party dated 23/12/17 to the complainant. Complainant failed to state the reason for non- payment of the tax within time prescribed in the notice. On going through the version of the second opposite party, it is seen that complainant is failed to comply the formalities as per section 50 (1) of the above said act, and the action initiated by the second opposite party is issued Ext.P4 memo demanding the tax arrears for the period from 01/04/2016 to 31/03/2018

(Cont.....6)

-6-

 

is a legal procedure as per law.

 

Hence no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be alleged against opposite parties 2 to 4.

 

At the same time, it is seen that the second opposite party is well aware that the vehicle which was seized by the Peermadu police was handover to the 5^th opposite party and after complying all the procedure. The 5^th opposite party sold out the vehicle in public auction. But the auction purchaser has not applied for the transfer of the ownership of said vehicle till date and the registration remains same in the name of the complainant. The auction purchaser has not complied the condition of Rule 57 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

 

On an overall consideration of the evidence on records. It is seen that the vehicle having Registration No.KL/17/H/38 was sold out by public auction by the authorized government agency. Even though the auction purchaser has not applied for transfer of ownership as per Rules 57 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, the liability of payment of arrears vested upon the auction purchaser of the vehicle. The second opposite party can easily trace out the where abouts of the auction purchaser, since he purchased the vehicle through a State Government proceedings.

 

On the base of above discussion Forum is of a considered view that the proceedings initiated by the second opposite party as per Ext.P4 memo is as per law and at the same time the second opposite party is bound to exonerate the complainant from remitting the tax due of the vehicle from the date of auction sale of the vehicle.

 

Under the above circumstances, complaint allowed in part. Forum declared that the complainant is not liable to pay the tax arrears of the vehicle having No.KL/17/H/38, Mahindra Alpha from the date of public auction of the vehicle. The second opposite party is directed to collect the where about of the auction purchaser from the 5^th opposite party and 5^th opposite party is directed to inform the details of the auction purchaser to the second opposite party within 30 days

(Cont.....7)

-7-

from the date of receipt of this order. This case is decided accordingly. Parties shall suffer their respective cost.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019.

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of sale agreement dated 22/07/15

Ext.P2 - Copy of notice issued by the Deputy Excise Commissioner

Ext.P3- Copy of petition filed by the complainant before the SRTO, Udumbanchola

Ext.P4- Copy of memo dated 13/12/17

Ext.P5- Copy of reply to the memo

Ext.P6- Copy of Revenue Recovery notice

Ext.P7-Copy of tax receipts

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1-Copy of Registration details of the vehicle in question

Ext.R2-Copy of AD cards

Ext.R3- Copy of representation given by the first opposite party to the

5^th opposite party

Ext.R4- Copy of sale left dated 30/07/15

Ext.R5- Agreement dated 22/07/15

Ext.R6 -Notice dated 02/07/16

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT