D.O.F:04/12/2019
D.O.O:25/11/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.240/2019
Dated this, the 25th day of November 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Mohan, aged 43 years,
S/o Krishna
H.No. 4/487, Krishna Nilaya,
Kudrepady House, Patla Post & Village
Kudlu Via, Kasaragod Taluk & District – 671124 : Complainant
And
1.Subraya B, Aged about 50 years,
S/o Madhava Mayya, P A Holder of
Shriram Transport Finance Co.ltd,
2nd floor, Aramana Arcade,
Bank Road, Kasaragod- 671121.
2. The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, : Opposite Parties
2nd Floor, Aramana Arcade,
Bank Road, Kasaragod – 671121.
(Adv: Babuchandran.K OP 1 & 2)
3. The regional Transport officer
The R.T.O, Civil Station, Vidyanagar Post,
Kasaragod Taluk and District – 671123
(Adv: District Govt. Pleader)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The facts of the case in short is that complainant purchased a goods vehicle on self employment basis with financial assistance from Opposite Party No:2. He made down payment of Rs. 40,000/-. The vehicle is registered with his name as KL- 14-J- 7583.
The opposite Party No:1 and 2 illegally seized the vehicle from his custody without giving any opportunity for payment. The opposite party No:1 and 2 put-up vehicle for sale. The complainant is ready to pay amount due but opposite party refused to accept it. Vehicle is sold its details not given arbitration award is passed, E.P is filed to recover the money due.
On 13/09/2018 the complainant received a demand notice from Opposite party No:3 to pay Rs. 6430/- as tax of the vehicle from 01/10/2017 to 03/09/2018 out of total Rs. 12,000/- opposite party agreed to pay balance payable by complainant to transfer ownership of the vehicle. The opposite party made complainant to believe that tax arrears are paid. The complainant claimed to clear tax liability with 3rd opposite party to refund Rs. 6000/- that he paid, and to transferring the R.C from the name of complainant and to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.
The opposite party No:1 ,2, and 3 filed version denying the allegations. The opposite party No;1 and 2 admitted filing of arbitration case and EP is pending is admitted loan is obtained on 30/09/2010 complainant is liable to pay Rs. 2,95,508/- out of that complainant paid Rs. 1,93,701/- complainant also obtained Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- on 25/09/2015, EP 310/2017 for recovering is pending. Thus stated that there is no deficiency in service and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The Opposite party No:3 filed version stating that road tax is pending for payment from 01/10/2011. Tax in arrears upto 30/08/2018 Rs.6430/- and penalty Rs. 3215/- is also due along with interest.
The complainant being the registered owner is liable to pay tax in arrears.
The complainant filed petition directing Opposite party No:1 and 2 to produce vehicle auction details, statement of account of loan transaction, name and address of auction purchaser of the vehicle. But Opposite party filed a counter stating that those documents are not available.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined for opposite party. Ext A1 and A2 marked. Ext A1 and A2 are copy of tax demand notice issued by opposite party No:3 RTO Kasaragod Opposite party No:1 examined as Dw1. Both parties filed argument notes.
Considering rival contentions the following points arise for considerations in the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the service of opposite party in the matter of seizing the vehicle, its auction sale, non- payment of road tax due etc?
- Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so for what reliefs?
All the points are discussed together for convenience
In this case complainant is filed in November 2019. The complainant says that vehicle is sold without prior notice. The complainant did not say when vehicle is seized by opposite party. But he read sale advertisement, offered to pay the money due but opposite party No:1 and 2 refused to accept it. It is very strange and surprising that finance company refused to accept loan amount from customer. The complainant received Ext A1 notice dated 01/08/2018 demanding arrear of tax due to vehicle. He further says that he has paid Rs. 6000/- to opposite party No;1 on 01/08/2018 towards tax. It is not known why tax is paid to opposite party No:1 when demand notice is sent by opposite party No:3 RTO. According to complainant opposite party No:1 misappropriated the amount, thereby is deficiency in service, but no document is produced to prove any payment made to Opposite Party No:1.
The opposite party No:1, Dw1, says he did not remember date of seizing of the vehicle. But admits vehicle is seized, also admit notice prior to sale of vehicle and notice after sale are usually issued to party but not produced in the case. He says seized vehicle is sold in public auction but don’t remember date of sale, name of auction purchaser or auction amount.
The finance company says no document of account summary, details of public auction amount, name of auction purchase, date of seize or sale date with them. So it is evident that company did not take any steps to change the ownership of the vehicle to the name of auction purchaser from date of auction sale. Because from the date of change of ownership of the vehicle, transferee alone to pay road tax after that.
Road tax is payable by R.C owner now RC is not changed even today after long five years.
Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No:1 and 2 in the matter of not issuing notice prior to seizing, prior to sale after sale and also failure to take steps to change ownership of the vehicle, even after producing copy of demanding tax notice.
No steps are taken as expected from any financing company, these actions, in actions Commission, omission, amounts to deficiency in service and negligence of service of the opposite party and thus complainant is entitled to compensation.
The opposite party No;1 filed affidavit dated 12/11/2021 that documents sought to be produced are very old and some is not traced where as complaint itself was filed in 2019, road tax demanded in 2018 and it is not made clear to how statement of account stored in computer is not available.
Shouldering the liability to pay road tax at least after sale to the head of complainant is most reprehensible. Company keeps vehicle, auction in public and keeps RC in the name of old owner without taking any steps to change the name in RC to the name of auction purchaser, there by complainant suffered great mental tension and agony, and opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case keeping the customer in darkness even after sale of the vehicle, Commission is of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- payable by opposite party No:2 to the complainant is found reasonable and thus opposite party No:2 is directed to pay a same to the complainant.
R.C owner is liable to pay the road tax as long as R.C still stands in the name of complainant. The complainant is not able to say date of seizure or surrender of the vehicle to the company to make the company liable to pay road tax, and thus prayer to refund Rs. 6000/- to complainant is rejected. Since there is no record to prove the payment.
The complainant for the first time says vehicle is sold on 04/04/2013 , then fact could have been informed by complainant to opposite party No: 3 in respect of payment of road tax to which complainant alone is made liable and claim for refund of Rs. 6000/- is rejected.
So far as claim to direct the opposite party to transfer RC in the name of auction purchaser is allowed in view of admission of opposite party No:1 and 2 that they sold the vehicle in public auction, though no specific date is not given by either party but in chief affidavit of Pw1, sale was of on 04/04/2013 and hence opposite Party No:1 and 2 are directed to take immediate steps to change ownership of the vehicle to auction purchaser.
As and when vehicle is seized and keeps the vehicle in the possession of finance is liable to pay road tax from the date of sale of vehicle. But still R.C owner cannot escape from the liability to pay road tax. In case to payment is made by complainant towards road tax to the vehicle KL -14-J 7583 during the period of its seizer till auction sale, complainant is entitled to recover the same from Opposite party No:2. The Opposite party No:2 is directed to pay the road tax from date of seizer till date of change of ownership of vehicle in the name of auction purchaser.
Prayer to direct opposite party No:3 to stop further proceedings against complainant in receipt of road tax during the period in due is rejected. Since liability is given to the complainant to pay and recover the same from Opposite party No:2, opposite party No:1 being the power of attorney holder of opposite party No:2 company, opposite party No:1 is absorbed/exonerated from all liability.
In the result complaint is allowed in part as follows : opposite party No:2 is directed to pay complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation with interest at 8% per annum from date of complaint till payment. And also the opposite party No:1 and 2 are directed to take immediate action to change the ownership of the vehicle bearing registration No: KL- 14-J -7853 in the name of auction purchaser as early as possible if not already taken. The opposite party No: 2 is directed to pay the entire due in road tax from the date of seizer/surrender of the vehicle. The opposite Party No:2 is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant. If time for complying the order as above is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax demand notice
A2- Copy of the R.C
Witness Examined
Pw1- Mohan
Dw1- B. Subraya
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
