Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 349
Instituted on : 09.06.2022
Decided on : 01.04.2024
Satpal aged about 40 years s/o Sh. Hem Raj R/o 43/11 Medical Enclave PGIMS Rohtak.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
SDO Civil cum Registering Authority (M.V) Rohtak Mini Secretariat Rohtak.
...........……Respondent/opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.LalitNayyar Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that as per the certificate issued by Civil Surgeon Rothak, he is 90% disable person. He purchased a Maruti Wagon R VXI from authorized dealer at Faridabad, Haryana on dated 30.01.2017 for a sum of Rs.519843/- only. The above said vehicle was specially designed for handicapped/disabled persons. The registration of the said car was done by the opposite party. Complainant submitted his disability certificate with the registration authority while applying for registration of the vehicle. But during the registration, the registering authority i.e. opposite party has charged wrongfully Rs.61500/- as road tax i.e. 11.83% which is more than the prescribed rates as per the notification of Govt. of Haryana Transport Department 98-2015 Ext. 5 June 2015. Complainant requested the opposite party number of times to take the consideration about the rate of road tax @ 5% and said notification but to no effect. Complainant is 90% disabled and as per said notification at serial note no.8 of the gazette, 100% exemption subject to maximum of Rs.36000/- on road tax for vehicle of disabled person (Called invalid carriage) was to be given to the complainant. But the complainant was compelled to deposit the road tax before issuance of R.C. of the vehicle. Complainant requested the opposite party number of times to take the consideration of the alleged notification but to no effect. The act of opposite party is illegal and there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party be directed to refund the excess amount charged illegally from the complainant Rs.27050/- with interest @ 20% p.a., to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony and Rs..55000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that it is correct that the said case was done by SDO Cum Registering Authority, Rohtak but the SDO cum Registering Authority Rohtak is under Govt. Employment and respondent has to do work under guidelines issued by the department/higher authority. It is correct that auto gear shift and class of the vehicle is an invalid carriage. It is submitted that Registering Software was developed as per direction of the Transport Department which the information has been filled as software accepted, so there is no negligence on the part of opposite party. The opposite party has charged as per rules and norms of the notification of Govt. of Haryana transport Department. There is no personal interest of respondent to charge excess amount from complainant. So there is no negligence on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, after filing the reply opposite party availed sufficient opportunities to adduce its evidence but failed to appear on 03.08.2023 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.08.2023 of this Commission.
3. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and closed his evidence on dated 10.02.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have perused the document Ex.C1 placed on record by the complainant. As per this notification no.13/15/2010-6T(1) dated 05thJune 2015 the Haryana Govt. Transport Department has exempted the tax on some vehicle ‘Aside car drawn by the vehicles mentioned in this document and invalid carriage’. As per condition no.8 of this notification, “100% rebate in road tax subject to a maximum of Rs.36000/- shall be given to persons with disability certified by the competent authority under the persons with disabilities (Equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995(Central Act 1 of 1996). As per Ex.C3 an amount of Rs.61500/- has been charged by the opposite party on account of road tax from the complainant. Complainant sent emails Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 and letters Ex.C7 to Ex.C11 requesting the opposite party to refund the extra amount charged from the complainant on account of road tax because the same was to be calculated @ 5% on the value of vehicle. As per notification dated 05.06.2015 of Haryana Government Transport Department bearing no.13/15/2010-6T(I), the registration authority will be charge 5% tax upto the value of vehicle of Rs.6 lac. In the present case the respondent officials have charged the tax @ 11.83% from the complainant which has been specifically mentioned in the written statement filed by the opposite party. Respondent has further submitted in the written statement that they have rightly charged an amount of Rs.61500/- as road tax from the complainant. But the registration authority failed to place on record any document or they have not attached any notification that the registration authority is entitled to charge road tax @ 11.83% upto the value of vehicle Rs.6 lac. On the other hand, complainant has placed on record document Ex.C1 i.e. Haryana Government Transport Department notification dated 05.06.2015 bearing no.13/15/2010-6T(I) having clause 2(ii) and as per detail of this notification vehicle other than two-wheeler will be charged 5% tax. We have minutely perused the document Ex.C3 a receipt issued by the Govt. of Haryana in which the road tax is mentioned as Rs.61500/-, rebate is Rs.36000/-, Rs.50/- on account of registration of invalid carriage, Rs.1500/- on account of hypothecation addition. An amount of Rs.1500/- and Rs.50/- has been rightly charged and the remaining amount of Rs.25500/- has been wrongly charged from the complainant. On the other hand, opposite party did not adduce any evidence and was proceeded against exparte, which shows that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations levelled by the complainant regarding charging the excess amount from the complainant stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant. As per Ex.C3 opposite party has charged Rs.25500/- in excess from the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.25500/-(Rupees twenty five thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deposit of alleged amount i.e. 23.02.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision..
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
