Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/952

DTO, Ludhiana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Subhash Kundra - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeshwar Singh

24 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                             First Appeal No.952 of 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 17.07.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision :  24.02.2015

 

District Transport Officer, Registering Authority, DTO Office, Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana.

 

                                                          …..Appellant/Opposite Party

         

                                      Versus

 

Subhash Kundra aged 50 years son of Sh.Sardari Lal Kundra r/o H.No.1447, Sector 32, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.

 

 

                                                          ….Respondent/Complainant

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.  

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Sh.Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate

          For the respondent :         Ex-parte

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                            

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The appellant (the OP in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging the order dated 30.04.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP now appellant to register the vehicle in accordance with law and to hand over the registration certificate thereof to the complainant without charging any further fee/tax on the basis of the Punjab Government Notification dated 28.02.2011 and to pay composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred  against the same by OP now appellant.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that he purchased one Tata Safari VX bearing temporary registration No.PB-10CU-3218, Chasis No.09992, Engine No.17505 Diesel, vide sale certificate No.1011-01302-SC dated 15.10.2010 for Rs.11,15,647/- . The actual price of the vehicle was Rs.9,80,788.90 and tax of Rs.134858.47 was added therein. The total price was quoted to Rs.11,15,647/- . The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.22680/- as tax, vide receipt dated 20.12.2010 with the OP at the prevalent rates of tax at that time in connection with registration of vehicle. The complainant applied for permanent registration certificate with the OP, but it refused to issue the permanent registration certificate on the ground that complainant should deposit enhanced tax as per notification no. 3/2/2011-1 T(2) 1281 dated 28.02.2011 and Memo No.G(AT)/09/20482 dated 21.06.2011 of Punjab Government. The complainant had deposited the due tax before issuance of the notification dated 28.02.2011. As such, the case of the complainant falls outside the purview of this notification. The complainant attended the auction twice held in the month of April 2011 and June 2011 for number of his choice, but to no effect. The complainant, has, thus filed this complaint against the OP directing it to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant with a direction to register the vehicle without charging enhanced tax thereupon.

3.      Upon notice, the OP appeared, filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. OP averred in reply that it is undisputed fact that complainant purchased the vehicle on 15.10.2010 and deposited road tax for new vehicle on 20.12.2010 well before issuance of notification by Punjab Government dated 28.02.2011. The notification was issued by the Punjab Government, vide Notification dated 28.02.2011 enhancing the tax for registration of the vehicles. The complainant failed to submit the relevant papers for registration in the office of the OP or Suvidha Center Ludhiana before 28.02.2011. The complainant admitted that he wanted to get fancy registration number for new vehicle and he took part in the open auction, which was held in the month of April 2011 and June 2011. By that time, he approached the office of OP for registration of his new vehicle and by that time, the notification of Punjab Government, dated 28.02.2011 was enforced.  OP denied and deficiency in service on its part and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A, copy of sale certificate Annexure A, copy of receipt challan Annexure-B, copy of Form 20 (Application for Registration of a Motor Vehicle) Annexure-C, copy of tax-invoice Annexure-D, copy of policy schedule Annexure-E, copy of letter dated 5.9.2011 Annexure-F. To counter this affidavit, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Tarlochan Singh, District Transport Officer, Registering Authority, DTO Office, Ludhiana, copy of letter dated 4.5.2011. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ludhiana  accepted the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP to register the vehicle of the complainant in accordance with law and hand over the registration certificate thereof to the complainant without charging any further fee /tax on the basis of Punjab Government Notification dated 28.02.2011. The District Forum also awarded composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant by virtue of order dated 30.04.2012 under appeal in this case. Dissatisfied with this order dated 30.04.2012 District Forum, Ludhiana, the instant appeal has been preferred by OP now appellant against the same. 

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as the respondent is exparte in this appeal and also examined the record of the case.    The controversy in this case is quite short. The complainant wants to get benefit of deposit of fee by him in the office of the OP on 20.12.2010 before endorsement of the notification of Punjab Government dated 28.02.2010 for enhancing the registration fee thereafter. The submission of the complainant before this Commission is that since he has deposited the requisite registration fee on 20.12.2010 before enforcing the notification dated 28.02.2010, hence, his case is not covered by the above notification. On the other hand, the submission of the OP now appellant is that mere deposit fee is not sufficient and the appellant is required to apply on the requisite performa with documents for registration of the vehicle. The submission of OP/appellant is that  complainant/respondent in this appeal has not applied for any registration of the vehicle in the office of the OP before enforcement of notification of Punjab Government dated 28.02.2011. We have to refer to evidence on the record to settle the controversy between the parties. The affidavit of complainant Ex.CW-1/A is on the record. He has virtually reiterated the averments in the complaint on oath in this affidavit.

6.      From perusal of record, we find that admittedly the complainant purchased the vehicle for sale price of Rs.11,15,647/- and applied for its registration and deposited the requisite fee as prevalent on 20.12.2010. The notification for enhancing the registration fee was issued by the Punjab Government on 28.02.2011. The version of the OP now appellant is that mere deposit of registration fee is not quite sufficient  in as much as complainant was also required to apply for registration of the vehicle on the requisite documents. We find that complainant only deposited the registration fee on 20.12.2010. The complainant failed to substantiate it on the record that he also applied for registration of the vehicle on requisite performa and documents before the enforcement of the above notification. It is own case of the complainant that he attended the auction twice in the month of April 2011 and June 2011. Consequently, we can safely conclude that complainant has only applied on the requisite performa/application coupled with documents for registration of the vehicle thereafter, Vide notification of Punjab Government Notification dated 28.02.2011, the registration fee of the vehicle of the value varied of 10 lac to 20 lac was raised to 6% of the value of the Motor Vehicle in lump sum after enforcement of the above notification. The Punjab Government enforced notification on 28.02.2011. The question for adjudication before us whether it was the rates prevalent on the date of registration fee deposited by the complainant on 20.12.2010 or the rates prevalent at the time when the complainant applied for registration would apply in this case. Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle, Rule 1989 states that complainant has to make an application for registration of the vehicle to the Registering Authority within a period of seven days from the date of taking of the delivery of the vehicle, which was to be accompanied by the documents mentioned therein, as well as the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81. As per Rule 48, on receipt of that application and verification of the documents furnished therewith, the Registering Authority would issue the certificate of registration, subject to the provisions of Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

7.      From the perusal of the referred rules, it is evident that the application has to be made for registration of the vehicle and process would start on filing the application for certificate of registration and this application has to be accompanied with the requisite fee as well. The complainant himself took part in the auction even in April 2011 and June 2011, even after enforcement of the notification on 28.02.2011 and as such he has not applied for registration of the vehicle coupled with documents as per Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which was applicable on the date when he moved the application for registration of the vehicle. We do not find any force in the reasoning of the District Forum that the fee already deposited by the complainant would govern this case, when the complainant had not moved an application for registration of the vehicle coupled with documents under Rule 47 (supra) on the date of deposit of fee by him before enforcement of the above notification.

8.      This point has already been decided by our State Commission in case titled as District Transport Officer, Registering Authority, DTO Mini Secretariat, Ludhiana.. Vs.  Amandeep Singh Toor son of Shri.Paramjit Singh Toor, resident of B-XX-1138, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana, in First Appeal No.354 of 2013 instituted on 28.03.2013 and decided on 26.08.2013.

9.      We have, thus, come to this conclusion that complainant is not entitled to any such direction issued by District Forum in the order under challenge in this case. The order of the District Forum awarding composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- is also unsustainable in this case. The District Forum recorded wrong observations in this case by ignoring the Rule 47 (supra). The order of the District Forum under appeal in this case is not tenable in our opinion.

10.    For the reason recorded above, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of District Forum Ludhiana dated 30.40.2012, the complainant  filed by complainant complaint now respondent in this appeal stands dismissed.

11.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.2500/- at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the appellant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

12.     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 18.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

13.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

February, 24    2015.                                                               

(ravi)