DATE OF FILING : 20.4.2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.132/2016
Between
Complainant : Joykutty,
Kanjiravila Puthenveedu,
Edavetti P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : The Joint Regional Transport Officer,
Joint RTO Office,
Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Complainant is the registered owner of KL/41/C/3890, Maruthi car. This vehicle met with an accident on 14.8.2012 and it is not in a road worthy condition. From the site of accident, it was towed to the complainant's premises. From that day onwards, it is kept idle therein. So many automobile mechanics tried to cure the defect of the vehicle, but they failed and they opined that the defect of the vehicle is incurable. In the year 2012 itself, the complainant intimated the matter to the concerned Joint RTO and applied for tax exemption. Since the opposite party was not turned up to consider his application, again on 15.5.2015, he submitted another application for tax exemption. But only in the month of Nov 2015, the opposite party intimated the complainant that, submit application in proper G-Form. Thereafter on 9.11.2015, the complainant filed application properly.
On the basis of this petition, the RTO authority conducted vehicle inspection and they found that, in the month of April, 2012, while at the time of oil changing, the odometer reading was noted as 71170 and at the time of inspection, the reading is 74768. Moreover, the inspection team
(cont....2)
- 2 -
found that, the vehicle is in a road worthy condition and the clutch and break pedals have some mud and clay. So they directed the complainant to pay vehicle tax. The complainant further averred that, so many mechanic tried to repair the vehicle and they done test drive, due that the mud found in the pedals. Moreover, the reading shown in the odometer was from the date of oil changes to the date of accident.
Complainant further averred that the vehicle was kept idle from the date of accident and not in a road worthy condition. The opposite party directed the complainant to pay tax, without conducting any fair inspection and based on a false information. Moreover, the complainant is ready to remit the tax from the year 2012 till the date of accident, that is on 14.8.2012. Complainant is entitled to get the tax exemption from the date of accident, since the vehicle is totally damaged and cannot be movable. After submitting proper application in G-Form, opposite party directed the complainant to remit an amount of Rs.9160/- as vehicle tax by deducting the fee for some period. The opposite party directed the complainant to pay such an amount, without conducting proper and just enquiry in this matter. The act of the opposite party is gross deficiency in service and against this complainant approached this Forum for directing the opposite party to exempt the complainant from paying tax in the afore said vehicle and cancel the demand notice dated 31.3.2016 and direct them to pay cost and compensation.
Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed written version. In their version, opposite party contended that on 15.6.2015, the complainant submitted a petition before the opposite party, stating that he is the owner of a vehicle having Reg. No.KL-41C-3890 and he is not interested to ply the vehicle because he is having no source of income and by considering the application, the complainant may be exempted from paying the tax arrears. On the receipt of the request, opposite party conducted an enquiry through on AMVI of the office, on 30.62016 and found that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition and having much mechanical efficiency. On further inspection it was found that the vehicle odometer reading was 71170 in the year 2012 while changing its oil and now the odometer reading was 74768 km. Also it is found that, clutch, break, accelerator pedals are having mud and its tyres
(cont....3)
- 3 -
are in good condition. On the basis of the above reasons, it is reported that the vehicle is still using and the contention of the applicant that, he was not used the vehicle from 2012 onwards is unbelievable. Moreover, it is found that the vehicle tax was not paid from the date on which the complainant got its ownership, at the same time he renewed the vehicle insurance till date. Opposite party further contended that as per the section 3 of Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, a motor vehicle which is using or intended to use is liable to pay the road tax. Moreover, if anybody claim tax exemption, it should be submitted before the authority through Form-G as per section (1) of the above said Act.
In the absence of such a claim, the opposite party directed the complainant to pay Rs.14620/- as tax dues. Thereafter the complainant filed application through Form-G and prayed tax exemption of vehicle tax on 9.11.2015, for tax exemption till 30.9.2016. On enquiry, the opposite party learned that the complainant is legally entitled to get the tax exemption for a period from 1.7.2011 to 30.11.2015. As per the report of AMVI, the tax arrears was deducted as Rs.9161/- from Rs.14620/- and directed the complainant to pay the revised tax. Against this, the complainant approached the Forum and filed this complaint suppressing all these facts. Hence no deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite party in this matter.
Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and exhibits. Ext.P1 is the notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 31.3.2016. Ext.P2 is the notice dated 9.11.2015. Ext.P3(series) are the copy of G-Form and AMVI inspection report. Ext.P4 is the copy of representation given by the complainant. Ext.P5 is the copy of RC Book. Ext.P6 is the demand notice under section 7 of Revenue Recovery Act. From the defence side, except the written version, no other evidence is produced.
Heard both sides in detail.
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
(cont....4)
- 4 -
The POINT :- Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant is that, the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-41C-3898 was not in road worthy condition from 14.8.2012 and not repairable. From the place of accident, it was towed and kept in the garage of the complainant. Hence the complainant is legally entitled to get the vehicle tax exemption from 14.8.2012 onwards. The counsel also submitted that the inspection report of the opposite party, that the vehicle is in road worthy condition and its clutch, break and accelerator pedals having mud cannot be believable and against actual facts. The counsel pointed out that so many mechanics were tried to repair the vehicle, each time they tried for a trial run. The mud seen in the pedals may be due to that. The differences in odometer reading was happened due to the use of the vehicle from the date of oil change, that is, from the month of April 2012 till the date of accident, that is on 12.8.2012. Since the observation of the opposite party in this matter is false and baseless, the complainant is legally entitled to get the benefit of tax exemption from 12.8.2015 onwards.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that, the opposite party is a statutory authority functioning under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act. Opposite party only exercised the statutory jurisdiction. The demanding of motor vehicle tax is not a service provided by the Motor Vehicle Department.
The counsel further submitted that section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act states as, “Levy of Tax – subject to provisions of this Act on and from the date of commencement of this Act, a tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the state, at the rate specified for such vehicle in the schedule”. Further submitted that there is no Form G for the period from 1.7.2011 to 30.11.2015. Form G submitted by the complainant who admitted from 1.12.2015 as per law and allowable exemption was granted from 1.12.2015. The complainant after purchasing the vehicle in 2011 never paid any tax and filed valid G Form only on 9.11.2015 and the said Form G was in force from 1.12.2015 to 30.9.2016. If the complainant is aggrieved in any way by the order passed by the 1st opposite party, the remedy is to file statutory appeal before the appellate authority. (cont....5)
- 5 -
We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the evidence and records of the case carefully. The question that falls for consideration is, whether the act of opposite party, Joint Regional Transport Officer, is deficiency in service or not ?
To decide the above said question, it is necessary to go through the exhibits and reply version, opposite party filed reply version along with the inspection report of the concerned authority on going through the report, it is seen that the odometer reading shows a difference of nearly 4000 kms in between the date of oil change, that is, in the month of April, 2012 and the date of inspection, that is, on 20.6.2015. As per the evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant approached the opposite party for tax exemption on 15.5.2015 and the AMVI inspected the vehicle in the garage of the complainant on 20.6.2015. As per the averement in the complaint, the vehicle was useless or unrepairable from 14.8.2012 onwards and as per Ext.P3, copy of Form G, he requested for the tax exemption for the period from 9.11.2015 to 30.9.2016. By considering the application, the opposite party exempted the complainant from paying tax of the vehicle from 1.12.2015 to 30.9.2016 and directed him to pay an amount of Rs.9160/-. Since the complainant was failed to pay the said tax amount, the opposite party initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against the complainant for realising the tax amount from him. After receiving the revenue recovery notice, the complainant approached this Forum. On going through the complaint and reply version, it is obvious that the opposite party allowed the request of the complainant and deducted the tax amount from Rs.14260/- as per Ext.P2 to Rs.9160/- as per Ext.P1. From this, the Forum convinced that the opposite party exercised its statutory duty. Moreover, the complainant miserably failed to prove that, the vehicle discussed in the complaint is not in a road worthy condition and cannot be repairable, with the aid of an expert in this field. Mere submissions is not sufficient to prove his case. At the same time, the Forum is of a considered view that the opposite party is a statutory authority functioning under a statute and exercised in their statutory jurisdiction. For establishing the above version, opposite party placed reliance upon the order of the Hon'ble National Commission in C.K. Mohanasundaran Vs. K.U. Gopalakrishnan Nair (R.P.No.2698/2011). In this judgement, the National Commission has
(cont....6)
- 6 -
unequivocally held that, the nature of allegations set out in the complaint clearly spell out that, the deficiency of service imputed against the 1st opposite party, pertain to discharge of their duties as public officials with respect to this type of matters, indisputably connected with the sovereign function of the state. Hence Consumer Protection Act is not applicable to case of this nature and the remedy is to be availed under the Motor Vehicle Laws in the state. If at all, there was deficiency in service by a public service by a public officer in discharge of his official duties, it has to be consider whether such duties related to sovereign function of the state.
In view of the above discussion, the Forum find no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties in this matter and hence the complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of March, 2018
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
(cont....7)
- 7 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Joykutty. G.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 31.3.2016.
Ext.P2 - notice dated 9.11.2015.
Ext.P3(series) - copy of G-Form and AMVI inspection report.
Ext.P4 - copy of representation given by the complainant.
Ext.P5 - copy of RC Book.
Ext.P6 - demand notice under section 7 of Revenue Recovery Act.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
