The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows:

 

            This complaint is against the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party by collecting an amount of Rs. 4045/- after a lapse of two years of remittance of the vehicle tax. The complainant purchased a Maruthi Wagon R car from the first opposite party. The complainant paid Rs. 20,750/- to the first opposite party towards the Life Tax amount as per registration expenses as on 31-03-2007 as per the customer account settlement voucher. As per the notice No. RI/LAR 2007-2008 dtd 11-02-2009 this complainant had been directed to pay an amount of Rs.4045/- stated to be of short assessment within 5 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The Motor Vehicles department issued Tax Licence for the period 30-03-2007 to

 31-12-2021 after receiving Rs. 18,800/-  on 30-03-2007 and the tax is paid for the period from 30-03-2007 to 31-12-2021 and the registration validity is given for a period from 4-04-07 to

3-04-2022 and the tax validity is given for a short period upto 31-12-2021. The complainant alleged that the demand for additional tax of Rs. 4045/- is illegal and unjust. Hence the complainant filed complaint praying to direct the repayment of Rs. 4045/- with 12% interest to direct the first opposite party to meet all tax expenses and to award the litigation cost.

            Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions separately.

            The first opposite party’s version came with the following main points.

i)                    The first opposite party had duly complied with all formalities for the purchase of the sale of the car.

ii)                   The tax for the car was remitted on 30-03-07 in accordance with the then prevailing date. The tax was received by the office and tax receipt dated 31-03-07 was also issued. All documents necessary for registration of the car under the MV Act were also submitted before Regional Transport Office, Kottayam for the purpose of registration of the vehicle immediately on payment of the tax. Payment of the tax, insurance etc are conditions precedent for registration of the vehicle.

iii)                 Even though all the necessary documents and records were submitted before the RTO, Kottayam as stated above the vehicle was registered

                         permanently on 4-04-07 after completion of all process for the

                         registration  of the vehicle by the RTO, Kottaym.

iv)                 There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party in effecting the registration of the car of the petitioner. All necessary formalities had been complied by this opposite party in time and without any fail by this opposite party.

v)                  Due to some changes in the pattern of payment of tax that has been made by the Government there was an increase in the amount of tax to be collected for the vehicle of the complainant.

vi)                 There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Hence the first opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs to them.

            The second opposite party filed version in the form of a letter with the following main points.

i)                    The vehicle was brought for registration on 04/04/2007 after remitting the tax on 31/03/07. As per the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act an amount of Rs.18,800/- was collected by the Department on 31/03/07.

ii)                   When the vehicle was brought for registration on 04/04/07 by over right the vehicle was got registered and new registration mark was allotted to the vehicle in due course as KL 5 X 6509. But from 01/04/07, after the advent new Government Policy, the amount supposed to collect from the applicant was amounting Rs. 22,845/- in stead of Rs. 18,800/- since the complainant had registered the vehicle only on 04/04/07.

iii)                 The new direction received from Government was to collect 6% of total amount of the Purchase Value of the vehicle as the tax for Non Transport Vehicle. As he already remitted an amount of Rs. 18,800/- on 31/03/07, notice was sent to him for the payment of balance tax amounting to Rs.4045/-.

iv)                 As the vehicle was purchased on 31/03/07, the tax is to be collected from 31/03/07 to 31/12/2021. As the vehicle got registered on 04/04/07, the validity of registration certificate is from 04/04/07 to 03/04/2022.

v)                  According to circular no.29/1998 of Transport Commissioner, since the date of registration varies from vehicle to vehicle the question of validity of tax paid period coinciding with a particular quarter, requires to make uniform. It is therefore ordered that the validity of the paid period in respect of vehicles which are required to pay one time tax will be till the date of end of the quarter, immediately prior to the date of expiry of 15 years or 5 years from the date of delivery as the case may be. Hence tax of the above vehicle was collected for the period from 31/03/07 to 31/12/21.

Hence the second opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by the complainant and first opposite party and exhibits A1 to A3.

            Heard the counsels for the complainant and the first opposite party and perused the documents placed on record. The learned counsel for the first opposite party submitted that all documents necessary for registration of the car under the M.V. Act were submitted before the office of the second opposite party for the purpose of registration of the vehicle, immediately on payment of the tax. Whereas the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as tax amount of Rs. 18,800/- is paid for the period from 30-03-2007 to 31-12-2021, the additional tax demand of Rs. 4045/- is unjust and illegal.  The first opposite party averred that the tax for the car was remitted on

30-03-2007 in accordance with the then prevailing rate of tax. The first opposite party further averred that the tax was received by the second opposite party and tax receipt dtd 31-03-2007 was also issued. Evidence placed on record prove that the first opposite party had duly complied with all the formalities in effecting the registration of the complainant’s case. So we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of first opposite party. 

            It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased a Maruthi Wagon R from the first opposite party on 31-03/2007 and remitted the tax on 31/03/2007 itself. In the letter dtd 22/07/2009, filed by the second opposite party instead of version, they stated that according to the Motor vehicle Taxation Act, taxes of non transport vehicles are collected on the date of purchase of the vehicle. The second opposite party further stated that as

the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 31/03/2007, the tax of the vehicle is to be collected from 31/03/2007 to 31/12/2021. As stated by the second opposite party the complainant had remitted the tax on the date of purchase of the vehicle itself, that is on 31/03/2007.

            The second opposite party stated that from 01/04/2007, after the advent new Government Policy, the amount supposed to collect from the complainant was 6% of total Purchase value and therefore they issued a notice for the balance tax payment amounting to Rs. 4045/-. Even though the second opposite party mentioned about the new Government policy, nothing is placed on record to prove the additional tax claim and the new policy. Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the act of second opposite party in issuing an additional tax claim notice and collecting the said amount from the complainant who had remitted the tax of the vehicle on the date of purchase itself in accordance with the then prevailing rate is a clear case of deficiency in service. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

            The second opposite party will refund Rs. 4045/- collected as additional tax amount to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 2000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded amounts will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-

 

 

 

 

Ext.A1-Copy of registration certificate

Ext.A2-Copy of customer account register

Ext.A3-Copy of notice dtd 11-02-2009 issued by the RTO to the complainant

 

Nil.

 

By Order,