State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Regional Transport Officer vs Soni Verma on 6 March, 2024
Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024
188 of 2021 Vs.
Sh. Soni Verma
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN
Date of Admission : 01.02.2022
Date of Final Hearing : 23.02.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024
First Appeal No. 188 / 2021
Assistant Regional Transport Officer
Roorkee, District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Shreegopal Narson, Advocate)
.....Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Soni Verma S/o Sh. Sohanlal Verma
R/o 656, Mathura Vihar, Paschim Ambar Talab
Roorkee, District Haridwar
..... Respondent in Person
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 181 of 2019 styled as Sh. Soni Verma Vs. Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.1
Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024
188 of 2021 Vs.
Sh. Soni Verma
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant purchased one 12 tyra Truck bearing registration No. UK17-
CA-1585 on dated 18.12.2017 for his livelihood which was financed by Sriram Finance Company. The said truck was stolen on dated 27.06.2018 in the parking of Dilsahd and Aslam, R/o Rampur Chungi, Roorkee; an appropriate information was immediately given to the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Roorkee, District Haridwar (ARTO, Roorkee) for the block of truck and simultaneously a report was also submitted to the Police Station, Kotwali Gangnahar on dated 28.06.2018, but the said report was not lodged, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint case No. 2628 of 2018 titled as Soni Verma Vs. Jahoor Ahmad etc. U/S 379, 504 & 506 of IPC Police Station, Kotwali Gangnahar, Roorkee in the court of ACJM, Roorkee. The complainant had tried to trace the vehicle in question, but it was recovered after one year from the town Camery, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur, which was brought by the complainant at Bilaspur to Roorkee. The complainant approached to the office of the opposite party - ARTO, Roorkee with the request to deposit the road tax, then he was told to pay Rs. 97,500/- as taxes; he was also apprised that the tax was not deposited due to theft of the vehicle. It was also apprised that all the papers, i.e. Fitness, Insurance and Taxes since six months were not completed. Inspite of apprising all the facts of theft of the said vehicle, the opposite party remained adamant directing the complainant to deposit Rs. 97,500/-, whereas as per the complainant's calculation, the outstanding amount was of Rs. 33,200/-, which the complainant was ready to pay the same, but the complainant was forced to deposit excess amount (Rs. 64,300/-) which is not calculated in accordance with law. The opposite party is pressing the complainant to pay all the taxes and such act amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, therefore, the complaint was lodged.
2 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024
188 of 2021 Vs.
Sh. Soni Verma
3. The opposite party has submitted its written statement alleging that the owner of the subject vehicle has apprised that his vehicle was stolen, therefore, taking precaution, the vehicle was blocked in the computer system. The complainant had lastly deposited tax of subject vehicle on dated 31.03.2018. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that the opposite party was saying to the complainant to deposit Rs. 97,500/- as taxes. As per rules there was an outstanding of Rs. 46,500/- and Rs. 18,927/- as penalty for the period from 01.04.2018 to 30.09.2019 which was payable at quarterly rests. It is incorrect to say that the complainant apprised of the fact of theft of subject vehicle in time and report in writing was ever given to the opposite party. Apart from it, there was a provision to file an appeal against the order passed by the ARTO, but no action was taken by the complainant to file the appeal against the order of ARTO, hence on the grounds narrated hereinbefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The District Commission after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order on dated 16.03.2021 wherein it is held as under:-
"ifjokn Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh dks vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og okgu VSDl ds :i esa eqc0&33]200@&:0 dh /kujkf"k ifjoknh ls çkIr djds mls jlhn tkjh djsAa foi{kh dks ;g Hkh vknsf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og eqc0&64]300@&:0 dh /kujkf"k crkSj VSDl okgu la[;;k&;w0ds017&lh0,0 1585 dh ckcr ifjoknh ls u olwysA blds vfrfjDr foi{kh crkSj {kfriwfrZ vadu 5]000@&:0 rFkk okn O;; ds :i esa Hkh vadu 3 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024 188 of 2021 Vs. Sh. Soni Verma 5]000@&:0 dh /kujkf"k ifjoknh dks djuk lqfuf"pr djsAa "
5. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the District Commission, the opposite party as appellant has preferred the present appeal alleging that the impugned judgment is against the facts, evidence and merits of the case; the impugned judgment was passed in contravention of the mandate provisions of law without applying the judicial mind and without perusing the material available before us. It is also contended on behalf of the appellant that neither any report in writing was given about the theft of the said vehicle to the ARTO department, nor any occurrence of the alleged theft had taken place because the complaint case No. 2628 of 2018 filed by the complainant was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by the ACJM Court, Roorkee under Section 379, 504 & 506 of IPC, wherein the report submitted by the Police Station concerned it is revealed that the respondent falsely got his name registered in the R.C. of the truck and the complainant had given a cheque of consideration amount of the vehicle to the tune of Rs. 7 Lacs to Jahoor Ahmad, which was dishonoured by the bank and even after it, the complainant had never given any amount to the Jahoor Ahmad and kept the vehicle in the premises of his known person Sh. Aslam. It was further agreed between Aslam and the complainant that if Jahoor Ahmad would not get the amount from the complainant, then the truck would be again registered in the name of Jahoor Ahmad. The amount of Rs. 7 Lacs was not given by the respondent to the Jahoor Ahmad, hence the truck was taken by the Jahoor Ahmad in his possession and in order to make pressure upon the Jahoor Ahmad, he lodged a FIR for the theft of the said vehicle. It is also contended by the appellant that the complainant has also submitted Revision Petition No. 12 of 2018, Soni Verma vs. State in the IInd ADJ Court, Haridwar, which was dismissed on account of not 4 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024 188 of 2021 Vs. Sh. Soni Verma pressing it by the respondent and Writ Petition No. 1909(M.S.) of 2018 filed by M/s H.S. Ale Ali and Sons Akbar Ali Vs. State of Uttarakhand, was dismissed in the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. Therefore, in the Commission below, the complaint was submitted only in incorrect and false facts and the impugned judgment was obtained concealing the true facts. The matter pertains to the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Reforms Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as to 'The Act, 2003'). Under Section 23 of The Act, 2003, Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to hear the same. Apart from it, as per Section 2 sub-Section 'd' of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant is not a 'consumer', hence the Commission below cannot entertain the complaint filed by the complainant, hence on such account, the appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines the terms of 'consumer', which is reproduced as under:-
(d) "consumer" means any person who--
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and 5 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024 188 of 2021 Vs. Sh. Soni Verma partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;
7. As per the above Section, it is not proved that what goods were purchased for consideration or what services were availed for a consideration from the appellant department by the respondent.
8. Respondent has not submitted any cogent and relevant evidence that he has paid such and such amount as consideration for availing the services of the appellant.
9. As per the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Taxation Reforms Act, 2003, the payment of taxation by the registered owner is the bounden duty which cannot be termed as the service as provided under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
10. Hence, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the respondent was not a consumer and the complaint was not entertainable in the Consumer Court.
11. Besides it, Section 23 of The Act, 2003 also provides the provision related to the Bar of Jurisdiction of the Court in the mater of taxation 6 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024 188 of 2021 Vs. Sh. Soni Verma wherein it is provided that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of anything done, any action taken or any order or direction issued by the State Government or any other authority or officer in pursuance of any power conferred by or in relation to its or his functions under this Act.
12. Thus, as per the above Section, the jurisdiction of the District Commission is barred to entertain any petition relating to the taxation matter.
13. Section 18 of The Act, 2003 contains the provision of appeal wherein any person aggrieved by an order of the Taxation Officer made under Section 4 and section 12 may within 30 days from the date of receipt of such order, prefer an appeal to the appellate authority.
14. Section 12 of The Act, 2003 is related to the non-use of the vehicle and refund of tax. So the order passed under Section 12 of The Act, 2003 is appealable and the appeal against such order should be filed under Section 18 of the said Reforms Act, 2003.
15. Section 20 of The Act, 2003 provides that the recovery of the taxes and arrears of any tax and additional tax or penalty payable under the said Act shall be recoverable as arrears of the land revenue.
16. When the recovery of the tax can be done as a recovery of land revenue in the above mentioned Sections, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the matter relates to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
17. As per Section 23 of The Act, 2003, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of complaints relating to taxation. In compliance of the 7 Appeal No. ARTO, Roorkee 06.03.2024 188 of 2021 Vs. Sh. Soni Verma above said provisions, Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Section 23 of The Act, 2003, the complainant does not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, the District Commission should not entertain such type of complaint. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned judgment is against the merits and mandate provisions of law. The District Commission has ignored the provisions of law and passed the impugned judgment making an illegality and irregularity in its passing. The impugned judgment is perverse and is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the District Commission, Haridwar is hereby set aside and the consumer complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal.
19. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant, if any, be released in favour of the appellant.
20. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. The copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
21. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 06.03.2024 8