D.O.F. 29.09.2010
D.O.O. 29.08.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011.
C.C.No.239/2010
Rekha P.,
D/o. Kumaran,
Lecturer, : Complainant
‘Sree Chathyam’
P.O. Echur, Kannur.
(Rep. by Adv. Deepak Madathil)
1. R.T.O.,
Kannur.
2. K.V. Premarajan, : Opposite Parties
L.D.C., R.T. Office,
Kannur.
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to return ` 4,930 collected by them without any justification and authorization and also to pay ` 50,000 as compensation with cost.
The case in brief of the complainant is that she had purchased a Toyota Qualis 2.4 Saloon Vehicle having No.K-13/K-3766 from one A.G. Rafeek, S/o. Nabeesa, ‘Anjillath House’, Thrikkarippur P.O., Kasaragod Dist and had applied for alteration of the same to private vehicle by remitting necessary fees. Application was preferred before the 1st opposite party on 20.03.2010. Along with the above said application, clearance certificate having No.9601/10 dated 11.03.2010 issued by S.R.T.O., Kanhangad was also produced. The said certificate clearly shows that the said vehicle is not having any outstanding dues by way of check report or departmental action. The vehicle was earlier taken to Kanhangad from Kannur for obtaining clearance certificate. The tax of the vehicle was paid upto 31.03.2010 and the vehicle was deleted from the office of S.R.T.O., Kanhangad with effect from 01.04.10. The vehicle was clearly shown to be permit less with effect from 22.03.10 which is evident from the clearance certificate. As per the receipt issued by opposite party the delivery date was 27.03.10. 2nd opposite party is the concerned clerk who dealt with the application preferred by the complainant. The complainant did not get the vehicle altered as stated and so she was constrained to approach the 2nd opposite party on so many occasions enquiring about the progress. The 2nd opposite party always told to the complainant that she is facing difficulties as she was not consulted at the time of preferring application and at last the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to remit tax of ` 3,720 with respect to the vehicle with effect from 01.04.10 to 30.06.10 as if it is a taxi vehicle. The opposite parties were not ready to hear the complainant, eventhough the complainant reminded the opposite party that it was declared permit less with effect from 22.03.10. and application was preferred as early as on 20.03.10 to alter the vehicle to private one and is not liable to pay the tax insisted by the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to pay ` 1,100 stating that the said amount is the alleged liability on the vehicle during 2004. The opposite parties refused to proceed with the application of the complainant without remitting the above mentioned amounts. Due to the urgent need, the complainant was constrained to remit the amount, eventhough she strongly believed that she is not liable to pay. The opposite parties further demands ` 110 as cess payable by the complainant. So a total amount of ` 4930 was collected by the opposite parties without any authority. Whenever enquired about the above directions of the opposite parties they insulted the sister’s husband Mr.Dhanpal, who has gone to the office of the opposite party to do the necessary things on behalf of the complainant. At last both the opposite parties directed the complainant to pay an amount of ` 5,760 towards tax from 01.07.10 to 30.06.12 for a private vehicle, which is according to the complainant only amount payable by her, but it should have been for the period from the date of her application for alteration of the vehicle. The opposite parties collected ` 4,930 illegally and unauthorisedly without any reason. Since the complainant is not liable to pay the amount and fine on any such amount. All these period the complainant was constrained to keep the vehicle idle and was constrained to hire vehicles. Whenever she intended to travel this caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant. So the complainant issued lawyer notice. Eventhough both of them received notice, they have not complied the demands of the complainant. Hence the complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant who is the possessor of vehicle No. KL-13K 3766 had filed an application for transfer of ownership and also for alteration of class of vehicle as private service vehicle for personal use on 20.03.10. But contended that at the time of filing the application the applicant has not produced the affidavit stating the nature of use of the vehicle and was advised to produce the same at the earliest in order to consider the alteration application. While attending the application, it came to understand that one check report is pending against the vehicle. The transfer of ownership cannot be considered when the check report is active. The applicant was willing to compound the offence and remitted 1,100 on 19.05.2010. Transfer of ownership was effected on the same day. The applicant was informed to remit tax for the period 01.04.10 to 30.06.10 and reminded to produce affidavit, stating the nature of use of the vehicle. On 21.05.10 applicant remitted the tax dues and produced the affidavit. Without delay, proceedings issued to the applicant to produce the vehicle for inspection, vehicle inspected and alteration noted in the registration certificate on the same day. The documents despatched to the applicant on 26.05.2010. On 01.06.10, the registered owner remitted ` 5,760 being the tax for 01.07.10 to 30.06.12 and ` 110 as road cess. The tax and fee collected are as per rules and no excess fee or tax is collected and there is no in ordinate delay in attending the file.
Clearance certificate was issued from S.R.T.O., Kanhangad. Only permit was surrendered at S.R.T.O., Kanhangad and the vehicle was not altered at that office and hence tax is in demand at taxi rate. The delivery date shown in fee receipt is system generated date and the actual date of delivery may vary. The possessor of the vehicle is liable to pay the tax in time. The possessor was willing to clear the check report by remitting compounding fee of ` 1,100 and the same was disposed on 19.05.10. There is no willful delay and the delay occurred due to non-adherence of the directions issued from the office of the 1st opposite party from time to time and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed.
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 and B1.
The case of the complainant is that eventhough she had applied for altering the class of vehicle to private vehicle by remitting necessary fees on 20.03.10, it was effected only on 21.05.10 and had received ` 4,930 more without justification. In order to prove the case, PW1 examined and documents such as receipt dated 20.03.10 issued by 2nd opposite party, clearance certificate dated 11.03.10 from S.R.T.O., Kanhangad, tax license dated 21.05.10 receipt for compounding fee, copy of lawyer notice, postal acknowledgement, reply etc are produced. Opposite party also produced Ext.B1 to disprove the case. The Ext.A1 along with the admission of opposite parties shows that the complainant had applied for alteration of class of vehicle as private service vehicle by remitting necessary fees. But the opposite parties contended that at the time of filing the application the applicant has not produced the affidavit and also check report is pending against the vehicle. The opposite party has produced Ext.B1 dated 21.05.2010, the signature in it was admitted by the PW1, from the witness box that “Ct¸mÄ Fs¶ ImWn¨ t]¸-dnse H¸v tcJ-bp-sS-b-Xm-Wv. BbXv affidavit BWv.” But the complainant has no case that it is not a genuine documents. It shows that the complainant had filed the affidavit only on 21.05.10. But the opposite party contended that they advised to produce the affidavit earliest. But not produced any document to these effect. So the contention that eventhough the opposite party had informed the complainant to produce the affidavit, they have produced it only on 21.05.10 is not a tenable contention. The opposite parties again contended that a check report is alive at the time of application of alteration and it was transferred only after compound the offence. But Ext.A2 is a clearance certificate issued from S.R.T.O., Kanhangad, before whom the vehicle was registered. As per this check report it is very clearly states that there is no outstanding dues by way of check report. Moreover the opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that there exist a check report. So, the contentions of opposite parties that the delay as caused due to the existence of a cheque report is not subsist. So the opposite parties are liable to return the amount of ` 1,100 received by them as per Ext.A4 on 19.05.10 from the complainant as compounding fee.
Yet another contention of the complainant is that they have received ` 3,720 as tax as taxi vehicle from 01.04.10 to 30.06.10. But the Ext.A2 shows that the vehicle is permit less with effect from 11.03.10. Moreover the opposite parties have no case or have not produced any documents to show that the complainant is liable to pay any amount towards tax. So the complainant is also entitled to refund ` 3,720 received by opposite parties as per Ext.A3. The complainant further contended that she has paid ` 110 as cess, but has not produced any documents to show that she is not liable to pay that amount. So the opposite parties are liable to refund ` 4,820 to the complainant. From the above discussion it is seen that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties by receiving excess amount from the complainant and caused delay in altering the class of vehicle for which we assess ` 2,000 as compensation and ` 1000 as cost of the proceedings and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund ` 4,820 (Rupees Four thousand eight hundred and twenty only) received by them along with a compensation of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) with ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Receipt dated 20.03.2010.
A2. Clearance certificate
A3. Tax licence.
A4. Receipt dated 19.05.2010.
A5. Copy of lawyer notice dated 01.06.2010.
A6. A6(a), A6(b) : Acknowledgements.
A7. Reply letter issued by 2nd opposite party dated 03.06.2010..
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Affidavit of complainant in stamp paper.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
