Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to direct the 1st Opposite party to refund excess amount of Rs.51,000/- and Rs.24,000/- being the Insurance amount along with interest and return of 7 cheques from the Opposite parties and further 2nd Opposite party to refund Rs.18,385/- with interest and compensation. 2. The facts of the complaint are as fallows; The complainant purchased motor vehicle Tata 207 bearing No.KA-11-4962 under hire purchase agreement with 1st Opposite party by making down payment of Rs.43,700/- and availed the loan paying first installment of Rs.8,215/- and insurance premium of Rs.8,000/- and got insured the vehicle with New India Assurance Company Ltd. The 1st Opposite party released the loan amount on 31.01.2005 and took 10 cheques from the complainant. The period of repayment is 5 years. The 1st Opposite party has also collected the insurance amount of Rs.32,000/- for the balance 4 years, out of 10 cheques the 1st Opposite party had collected the amount from the banker in respect of 3 cheques. The complainant had made payment of 7 installments directly to the 1st Opposite party. The said vehicle was stolen on 18.06.2006 when it had been parked near his house. In this regard, the complainant has filed complaint and the police have registered the case and after investigation police filed C report as the vehicle was not traced. This was brought to the notice of Insurance Company and also the 2nd Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party has made payment of 2nd year insurance premium of Rs.8,000/- and thus there was balance amount of Rs.24,000/- with the 1st Opposite party. The Insurance Company deposited Rs.3,19,500/- with the 1st Opposite party. The 1st Opposite party has not given deductions to the installments paid by the complainant and also the down payment amount. So, 1st Opposite party was bound to pay Rs.51,000/- to the complainant. 3. Further, after the theft of the vehicle on 18.06.2006, the tax period was in force for another 4 months. The complainant informed the theft of the vehicle to the 2nd Opposite party along with copies of the vehicle documents and also FIR. In spite of it, 2nd Opposite party demanded the payment of life tax of the vehicle and collected Rs.18,385/- at the time of surrendering the original vehicle documents and thus 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service also. Though, the complainant visited the Office of the 1st Opposite party on several occasions and requested by making number of correspondence, the 1st Opposite party did not correspond. Therefore 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Inspite of legal notice dated 18.03.2008 there is no reply. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 4. The notices were served on the Opposite parties. 1st Opposite party remained absent and has been placed exparte. 2nd Opposite party has submitted version in the form of a letter, stating that motor vehicle tax of the vehicle was due from 01.09.2006. The Authority demanded the tax as per the provision of section 3 & 4 of KMVT Act 1957 and Rs.18,385/- being the arrears of tax for the period from 01.09.2006 to 31.05.2007 and life time tax from 01.06.2007 is collected is in order. The registered owner of the claim has not claimed exemption from payment of tax as per the provisions of section 16 of the KMVT Act 1957 read with Government Notification dated 06.09.2007 and the vehicle was transferred to the name of Insurance Company from 24.01.2008. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any refund of tax. 5. During trail, the Complainant is examined as CW.1 and Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.18 are marked. No evidence is adduced by the Opposite parties. 6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant proves that 1st Opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.51,000/- towards the loan amount? 2) Whether the complainant proves that the insurance amount of Rs.24,000/- deposited by him with the 1st Opposite party? 3) Whether the collection of the tax amount of Rs.18,385/- by 2nd Opposite party is illegal and 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 4) Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not refunding the alleged excess amount and insurance premium amount? 5) What order? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. POINTS No.1 to 5:- The evidence and the documents produced by the complainant like Ex.C.15, 16 clearly proves that the complainant purchased Tata 207 on 17.02.2005 by making down payment of Rs.43,700/- and availed the loan of Rs.3,55,000/- on interest and the loan amount is repayable in 60 installments and first installment is Rs.8,155/- deposited by the complainant at that time and 59 installments at the rate of Rs.8,215/- is to be deposited. As per Ex.C.16 for the loan of Rs.3,55,000/-, the interest is Rs.97,625/- and insurance premium is Rs.32,000/- and total receivable amount is Rs.4,84,625/-. Ex.C.16 reveals the repayment schedule. Amortization table issued by the 1st Opposite party and produced by the complainant reveals how the installments of each month is to be appropriated out of Rs.8,215/-, Rs.4,639/- is towards principal, Rs.3,036/- is towards the interest and Rs.540/- for the insurance amount. So, the evidence of the complainant is that he has deposited insurance amount of Rs.32,000/- with the 1st Opposite party and the 1st Opposite party has deposited second installment of Rs.8,000/- and there is till balance of Rs.24,000/- cannot be accepted, because the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he has deposited insurance premium amount of Rs.32,000/- with the 1st Opposite party. If the complainant had deposited the insurance premium amount for 4 years in advance with the 1st Opposite party, the complainant would have protested at the time of borrowing the loan when the repayment schedule Ex.C.16 which includes insurance amount of Rs.32,000/- was provided to him at the time of borrowing the loan. The insurance premium amount of Rs.32,000/- is included to the loan amount and the total amount of Rs.4,84,625/- is to be paid in installment as per the repayment schedule. So, the complainant has not proved that the 1st Opposite party has retained illegally Rs.24,000/- being the insurance premium said to be deposited by the complainant with 1st Opposite party. 10. According to the complainant, towards the loan amount the first installment of Rs.8,215/- was deposited by him, but as per Ex.C.16 the first installment is Rs.8,155/- and other 59 installments are Rs.8,215/-. So, as per Ex.C.15 it is clear that the loan amount of Rs.4,76,470/- is to be paid in 59 installments and according to the complainant, the 1st Opposite party has collected 10 cheques for Rs.8,155/- and out of them, the 1st Opposite party has collected amount of 3 cheques from the banker of the complainant and he had made payment of 7 installments directly to the 1st Opposite party. The complainant has produced the vouchers Ex.C.7 to C.13 to prove that he has made some payments on different date, but it cannot be said that they are in respect of 7 installments, as per Ex.C.7 to C.13, totally the complainant deposited Rs.78,415/- by means of cheques on different dates and not in accordance with repayment schedule not by cash. So, naturally collection charges will be deducted from this amount. According to the complainant, the theft of the motor vehicle was informed to the 1st Opposite party by means of letter Ex.C.6 and also Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has settled the claim by depositing Rs.3,19,500/- with the 1st Opposite party and has obtained the voucher by the complainant copy of the voucher is produced by the complainant. The 1st Opposite party has not disputed the deposited amount of Rs.3,19,500/- by the Insurance company. So, when the insurance amount was deposited with 1st Opposite party, the 1st Opposite party has to calculate the principal amount and interest due by the complainant and adjust the insurance amount and pay the balance if any. The complainant has produced Ex.C.18 the repayments chart up to 05.02.2008, we cannot make out what is the amount actually due as on 25.02.2008. But, the complainant has produced the interest calculation for the vehicle loan and according to this up to 15.02.2008 from 15.02.2005 the interest is calculated at 5.5% and as per this calculation the complainant was due of Rs.2,69,440/- as on 15.02.2008 and deducting to Rs.3,18,500/-, the balance is shown as Rs.50,060/- in the calculation furnished by the complainant it is shown that 16 installments are deducted. As per the complaint itself 3 cheques of Rs.8,215/- and initial deposit of Rs.8,155/- were collected and he has made 7 installments and as stated above as per Ex.C.7 to C.13 totally deposited Rs.78,415/- and 3 cheques amount is Rs.24,645/- and totally it comes to Rs.92,970/- + Rs.8,155/-. In calculation sheet, 16 installments of Rs.8,215/- comes to Rs.1,31,440/-. So, the calculation made by the complainant is not also correct, when the Opposite party has received Rs.3,19,500/- from the Insurance Company and the complainant has deposited Rs.1,01,125/- it comes to Rs.4,20,625/-. According to the table of the Opposite party as on 15.02.2008, if the complainant had deposited the installment regularly the balance amount would be principal Rs.1,59,638/-, interest is Rs.16,747/- and the Insurance amount is Rs.12,560/-, but according to the complainant, the Opposite party has deposited only one installment premium amount of Rs.8,000/-. The 1st Opposite party has not appeared before the Court and has not proved the calculation as to how much amount the complainant was due and how it has appropriated the insurance amount of Rs.3,19,500/- sent by the Insurance Company. The evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged and it proves that the Opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.51,000/- and inspite of legal notice Ex.C.17. 1st Opposite party has not replied to the claim made by the complainant, therefore when the 1st Opposite party has not disputed the claim and when the Opposite party has received the amount from the insurance company apart from the complainant, it is bound to refund the excess amount collected and therefore the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not refunding Rs.51,000/- to the complainant. 11. The complainant has pleaded and deposed that though the theft of the vehicle on 18.02.2006 was informed to the 2nd Opposite party (RTO) with a Xerox copy of their vehicles and FIR, 2nd Opposite party has collected tax of Rs.18,385/- at the time of surrendering the original vehicle documents, though the period was in force for another 4 months from 18.06.2006 that is a date of theft. But according to the 2nd Opposite party the motor tax was due from 01.09.2006 and the complainant has not claimed any exemption as per section 16 of the KMVT Act 1957 and on 24.01.2008 the documents was surrendered and the ownership was transferred to the name of Insurance Company as per Ex.C.1 the complainant has deposited Rs.18,385/- on 08.01.2008. 12. The collection of motor vehicle tax by the transport authority whether excess or not, does not come under the definition of hiring of service and the payment of tax to the Government is not covered under the definition of hiring the service or deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is not at all maintainable against the 2nd Opposite party. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.51,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 25.02.2008 with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of July 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) ctj
