D.O.F:02/08/2019
D.O.O:20/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.155/2019
Dated this, the 20th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Zainaba Mohammed Kunhi aged 52 years
W/o Kalanad Mammunhi Mohammed Kunhi
R/at Cheriyaji Manzil
KEL Road Kunnil : Complainant
Chowki, Kudlu
Kasaragod District
( Adv:Udayakumar.R)
And
1. The Manager,
Amana Toyota,
VPK Motors (P) Ltd
Periya, Kasaragod : Opposite Parties
(Adv: P. Satheesan)
2. Regional Transport Officer,
Civil Station , Vidyanagar,
Kasaragod
(Adv: Dist. Govt. Pleader)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a new Innova Crysta vehicle from Opposite Party No: 1 on 10/10/2017. Opposite Party No: 2 is the Regional Transport Officer Kasaragod. Vehicle is assigned with registration No: KL- 14 V 7888. He paid its full price with Insurance Policy. The Opposite Party No: 2 sent a notice claiming Rs. 1,03,990/-as tax due payable within seven days. Complainant prays for direction to Opposite Party to compensate Rs. 2763.51/- and to pay cost and compensation.
2. The Opposite Party No:1 appeared and filed its written version. They denied the allegation in the complaint. But admitted purchase of vehicle on 29/11/2017. Price of vehicle including tax for due was Rs. 19,99,800/- is collected, variations in tax came to effect after delivery of vehicle and thus department demanded the amount due from complainant who is the registered owner. Tax is payable always by registered owner. There is no deficiency in service by Opposite Party. Thus complaint to be dismissed.
3. The Opposite Party No:2 filed separate version. While computing price of vehicle TCS has not been taken in account. Thus as per KMJ Taxation amendment bill tax collected at source by dealer should be included while computing purchase value of vehicle.
4. The complainant filed documents and marked as Ext A1 to A5. The Opposite Party No: 2 filed a memo producing documents namely letter dated 02/05/2018 by Transport Commissioner regarding value of vehicle including tax collected at source by dealer.
5. In view of averments in complainant points raised in denial in written version, evidence adduced following points arise for consideration; they are
a) whether there is any deficiency in service in the service of a Opposite Party demanding difference in tax as per amended provisions of Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act and whether any of parties liable to compensate the complainant in this regard or not and if so as to what reliefs?
6. From the documents and evidence made available it is proved that complainant purchased the vehicle from Opposite Party No: 1 by paying its full price as per invoice shown their in. But as per documents produce by Opposite Party No: 2 amount by way of TCS is demanded as per statutory provisions payable by every owner of the vehicle depending upon its price. There is no allegations that government is not entitled to demand or collect the difference in amount of tax payable as per law. But it is true that dealer omitted to demand or collect the difference at the time of delivery for which liability cannot be disputed commission to collect the tax as per amended act or provision cannot be treated as considered as deficiency in service or negligence from Opposite Party No:1 as Opposite Party No:2.
7. Every person being seller who receives any amount as consideration for sale a motor vehicle of the value exceeding Ten lakh rupees, shall at the time of receipt of such amount, collect from the buyer, a sum equal to one percent of the sale considerations as income tax.
So there is no deficiency in service negligence from side of Opposite Parties they are not liable to compensate nor is complainant entitled to any compensation in the case. The Opposite Party No: 2 is at liberty to collect the difference in tax payable by owner of vehicle though to be collected at the time of purchase of vehicle, prayer for compensation and other reliefs are disallowed for want of legal and acceptable evidence. Therefore the complaint is dismissed but not without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
A1- Tax invoice
A2- Copy of R.C
A3- Copy of the insurance certificate
A4- Copy of the TDS certificate form No: 27D
A5- Copy of the notice issued by the Opposite party
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
