State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Transport Commissioner, Punjab vs Gursewak Singh & Anr. on 25 February, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.588 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 22.05.2013.
Date of Decision: 25.02.2014.
1. State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh.
2. District Transport Authority, D.T.O. Office, Ferozepur.
.....Appellants.
Versus
Gursewak Singh, aged 39 years, S/o Sh. Raj Singh, R/o Village
Mehma, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
22.03.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for the appellants.
Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the two (2) appeals i.e. F.A. No.588 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Gursewak Singh) and F.A. No.589 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Om Parkash) as the questions of First Appeal No.588 of 2013 2 law and facts involved in both the appeals are similar and the appeals are directed against the similar orders dated 22.03.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum"). Facts are taken from F.A. No.588 of 2013 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Gursewak Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellants/opposite parties (hereinafter called "the appellants"), making the assertions that he purchased Chevrolet Model Captiva LTZ, White Pearl Colour vehicle from Padam Motors, Bathinda, for a sum of Rs.19.99 lacs and applied for getting the said vehicle registered with appellant no.2 and deposited the fee of Rs.41,600/- on 28.02.2011 through challan in the bank in lumpsum as per the rules of the State of Punjab and appellant no.2 accepted the same. The respondent requested appellant no.2 for providing fancy number and it was told that the auction of fancy number is to be held on 04.03.2011. The respondent gave the highest bid of Rs.70,000/- for registration No.PB-05-S-0006 and the said amount was deposited by the respondent in the bank through receipt challan which was accepted by appellant no.2.
3. After some days, the respondent approached appellant no.2 for obtaining the registration certificate, but it was told that the registration certificate cannot be issued as the road tax has been increased by the State Govt. in the month of March, 2011 and the respondent was asked to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.80,000/- approximately. The respondent requested appellant no.2 that he has applied for getting the registration certificate in the month of February, First Appeal No.588 of 2013 3 2011 and, as such, he is not liable to pay the said enhanced amount. The road tax is to be deposited on the bill amount of the vehicle and not on the auction amount of fancy number.
4. Appellant no.2 is now threatening to put the same fancy number in the next auction in case the enhanced amount of road tax is not deposited by the respondent and in case appellant no.2 does so, the respondent will suffer an irreparable loss. The act and conduct of the appellants amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the respondent is entitled to compensation for harassment.
5. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to issue the registration certificate with regard to the vehicle in favour of the respondent and to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of appellant no.2, purchasing of vehicle and deposit of registration fee was considered to be matter of record. It was further submitted that the amount of registration certificate is calculated on the date of sanction/allotment of number. The respondent might have deposited the fee of registration on 28.02.2011 as Rs.41,600/- alone, but he has not submitted the deposit receipt with appellant no.2 and kept it with him upto early April. As per the contents of the complaint, the respondent selected the registration number on 04.3.2011 and he may have deposited the amount of Rs.70,000/- for fancy No.PB-05-S-0006. Appellant no.2 cannot be issued registration certificate on previous rates as after 28.02.2011, the fee increased due to new notification of the Govt. of Punjab. The facts are that the respondent deposited the fee on 28.02.2011 and selected the registration number on 04.03.2011. On 28.02.2011, the fee of registration was increased vide Govt. Notification dated 28.02.2011. If First Appeal No.588 of 2013 4 the respondent would have got selected the registration number before the increased rates, he would have not been asked to deposit the extra fee. The receipt was not submitted and it was kept by the respondent with himself and the same was submitted after 04.03.2011 and he applied for registration only on that day i.e. after 06.04.2012, so rates of 06.04.2012 would be applicable. The respondent applied in April, 2012 and asked for the number in July, 2013 or whatsoever in future date for waiting new series and is liable to pay the enhanced fee. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
7. Appellant No.1 did not contest the complaint before the District Forum and was proceeded against exparte.
8. Contesting parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
9. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that appellant no.2 has neither pleaded nor produced any evidence on record that the said notification dated 28.02.2011 was displayed on the notice board of its office for notice of the general public. The written reply of appellant no.2 is also silent as to when the said notification was received in the office of appellant no.2. Even at the time of depositing the bid money of Rs.70,000/- for fancy number of the respondent on 04.03.2011, appellant no.2 did not raise any objection regarding enhancement of registration charges and got deposited the bid money for fancy number without any remarks. If the enhancement of registration charges were applicable on the registration of the vehicle of the respondent, appellant no.2 should have informed the respondent in this regard. The appellants have kept the respondent First Appeal No.588 of 2013 5 in dark regarding the enhancement of registration charges which resulted into the present litigation for non-registration of his vehicle till date. The fancy number charges have no concern with the notification dated 28.02.2011 Ex.R-3. Since the said notification Ex.R-3 was effective from 28.02.2011, the respondent is not liable to pay the enhanced registration charges as per the said notification. The registration of the vehicle of the respondent has been considerably delayed on account of the negative approach of appellant no.2 towards its duties which is also evident from another complaints bearing CC No.425 of 2012 titled as "Om Parkash Vs State Transport Commissioner & Ors." and CC No.555 of 2011 titled as "Ankit Maini & Anr. Vs District Transport Officer". In those complaints, the registration charges and fancy number charges were deposited by those complainants well before issuance of the notification dated 28.02.2011, but the registration certificate was not issued on account of enhancement of registration charges. Appellant no.1 has chosen to abstain from the proceedings of the complaint even after remanding back the present complaint to the District Forum by the State Commission, Punjab. Relying upon Rule 42-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the complaint was allowed and the appellants were directed to get deposited the balance registration charges from the respondent as per notification dated 28.02.2011, taking the actual price of the car as Rs.17,57,363/- after adjusting the registration charges of Rs.41,600/- already deposited on 28.02.2011 vide receipt challan Ex.C5 and to issue registration certificate of the vehicle bearing fancy number allotted to him in open auction. The appellants were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. First Appeal No.588 of 2013 6
10. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.03.2013, the appellants have come up in appeal.
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the District Forum has not considered the evidence on record and the impugned order under appeal is illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The District Forum failed to appreciate that the respondent deposited the amount on 28.02.2011, knowing that he has applied for the number of his choice and does not want the number allotted to him by the appellant in routine. The respondent was fully aware that registration charges were going to be increased w.e.f. 28.02.2011 and he himself deposited the amount and kept the receipt of the amount deposited with him and did not submit the receipt with appellants and the appellants were not aware about deposit of any amount in their account towards registration.
13. The District Forum ignored the fact that the respondent was supposed to deposit the amount towards registration as the registration has to take place only after allotment of specific number to the respondent. The auction took place after the issuance of the notification dated 28.02.2011 in which the registration charges were enhanced and the respondent selected the fancy number on 04.03.2011 and the amount was deposited on 28.04.2011 which proves that the registration has to take place only after 04.03.2011 and the amount of registration was to be deposited as per new notification dated 28.02.2011. There is no personal interest of the appellant to charge more amount, as the same has to be deposited with the Govt. First Appeal No.588 of 2013 7 The District Forum has reproduced the notification dated 24.10.2007, but has ignored Clause-( iii) of the notification in which it is clearly mentioned that the successful bidder has to apply to get the vehicle registered within seven days. The registration has to take place after the auction and, as such, the deposit of any amount prior to the auction does not entitle him to escape from the notification dated 28.02.2011 vide which, the registration charges were increased.
14. The respondent participated in the auction and chose a specific number i.e. 0006 and he deposited the amount of Rs.70,000/- on 04.03.2011. The order passed by the District Forum, directing the appellants to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside. It was prayed that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the registration fee was increased w.e.f. 28.02.2011 from 2% to 6%. The respondent alleged that he deposited the registration charges in the bank on 28.02.2011, but the receipt or the copy of the challan form was never deposited with the appellants. No application for registration was made. The bid for fancy number was conducted on 04.03.2011 and the respondent deposited the bid amount of Rs.70,000/- and the application was to be filed after the bid. The appellants demanded the enhanced amount as per the notification of the Punjab Govt., but instead of paying the same, the present complaint was filed. It has been argued that in the prayer clause, the issuance of registration certificate alongwith compensation and cost was pleaded. It was further argued that there is no evidence on record to show that any application was made for the registration and without the application, no registration certificate could be issued. As per Clause-(iii) of Rule 42-A First Appeal No.588 of 2013 8 of Punjab Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 relied upon by the District Forum, the application has to be moved after the acceptance of the bid within a week and not prior to that. It has been argued that the order passed by the District Forum is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be set aside.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent deposited the fee on 28.02.2011 vide receipt challan Ex.C-5 and thereafter, took part in the auction for fancy number and the fee enhanced was not applicable nor any such notification was brought to the notice of the respondent. The application was also made on the same day and the challan was stamped by the Registering Authority and the respondent is not liable to pay any enhanced registration fee. The District Forum has relied upon Rule 42- A of Punjab Motor Vehicles, 1989 and the fancy numbers are allotted through public auction and the owner has to apply for the registration under this rule. The District Forum has passed a detailed and speaking order and there is no ground to interfere with the same and the appeal may be dismissed.
17. We have considered the respective submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have thoroughly scanned the entire record and other material placed on the file.
18. The respondent has placed on record the invoice Ex.C-2 as per which, vehicle Chevrolet Captiva was sold for a sum of Rs.17,57,363/- and VAT and surcharge amount was Rs.2,41,637/- and the total cost was Rs.19.99 lacs. Sale letter is Ex.C-3 and the Temporary Certificate of Registration is Ex.C-4. Receipt Challan Ex.C-5 is dated 28.02.2011 as per which, Rs.41,600/- were deposited in the Treasury by the respondent. Receipt Challan Ex.C-6 is dated First Appeal No.588 of 2013 9 04.03.2011 and an amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited as fancy number fee.
19. To rebut this evidence, the appellants have placed on record, the Notification Ex.R-3 which is dated 28th February, 2011 as per which the rates of the Motor Vehicle Tax were revised and the Notification was to come into effect with immediate effect, which means that the Notification Ex.R-3 came into force on 28th February, 2011.
20. The District Forum has given a very strange reasoning, for not applying the said Notification, mentioning that the said Notification was not brought to the notice of the respondent or it was not displayed on the notice board outside office of appellant no.2, forgetting that a Notification by the Govt. is the law and it is applicable from the day, it is brought into force. The Notification itself denotes that it is a notice to general public and, as such, its applicability is to be taken from the date, it comes into effect. As stated above, the Notification came into effect with immediate effect, as such, it was applicable everywhere in Punjab from the date of Notification.
21. As per Notification Ex.R-2 dated 03.11.2011, rates of Motor Vehicles Tax were provided. The District Forum has relied upon Rule 42-A of Punjab Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, inserted vide Notification dated 24th October, 2007, but has lost sight of Clause-(iii) of the Notification wherein it is provided as follows:-
"Clear instructions be given to the successful bidder to get his vehicle registered within seven days. In case the successful bidder fails to pay the full bid amount and get the vehicle registered within 7 days, the amount deposited with the application shall be forfeited and the number shall be allotted to the next highest bidder."First Appeal No.588 of 2013 10
22. From the above Clause (iii), it is clear that the successful bidder has to get his vehicle registered within seven days after the bid after he is declared successful bidder. In case, the successful bidder fails to pay the full bid amount and get the vehicle registered within seven days, the amount deposited with the application has to be forfeited.
23. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel for the respondent on the Receipt Challan Ex.C-5 that the amount was deposited on 28.02.2011 and, as such, the Notification was not applicable. Even this argument is not tenable, because the Notification dated 28.02.2011 was made effective w.e.f. 28.02.2011 itself and as stated above, the Notification is a notice to the general public and it is the 'Law of the Land' and everyone is supposed to know about it, therefore, the enhanced registration charges as per this Notification were applicable on 28.02.2011 itself. Again, mere deposit of this amount, without filing any application for registration certificate, is meaningless and no copy of the application is on record to prove that the application for getting registration certificate was submitted on 28.02.2011. Even if it is presumed that the application was submitted, although there is no evidence of submission of the same application, even then as discussed above in detail, the enhanced registration charges were applicable w.e.f. 28.02.2011 itself and the respondent is liable to pay the same. This Commission in case "District Transport Officer, Registering Authority, DTO, Ludhiana Vs Amandeep Singh Toor", First Appeal No.354 of 2013, decided on 26.08.2013, relied upon Rule-48 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the relevant portion is reproduced as follows:-
First Appeal No.588 of 2013 11
"Therefore, it was the rate of fee as applicable on 30.05.2011, which was payable by the complainant and he could not have asked for the registration of the vehicle by making application on 30.05.2011 by insisting that the fee deposited by him on 31.01.2011 was correct; as in between the rates of the fee were revised. He was required to pay the fee at the rate, which was applicable on the date he moved the application."
24. As per Rule-48 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the application for registration to the Registering Authority has to be made within seven days from the taking of the delivery of the vehicle which is to be accompanied by the documents and the fee.
25. As discussed above, there is no application on record, to prove that the respondent made any application and the date of the application is relevant for the purpose of registration fee and not the date of the deposit of the registration fee. The District Forum has ignored the rates applicable as well as mis-interpreted the applicability of the Notification, in its own manner, not acceptable to the law. The Compensation was also awarded with some vengeance. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
26. Sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 22.03.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. Parties to bear own costs.
27. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to First Appeal No.588 of 2013 12 appellant No.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.589 of 2013:-
28. Similarly, in F.A. No.589 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Om Parkash), the respondent purchased Honda I.V. Tec. Petrol car on 10.02.2011 from Dada Motors, Horizon Honda, Ludhiana and applied for getting the said vehicle registered with appellant no.2 and deposited the fee of Rs.18,730/- on 24.02.2011 through challan in the bank for issuance of new RC. The respondent contacted appellant no.2 for providing VIP/auctioned number and it was told that the auction is to be held on 04.04.2011 and the auction was conducted and the respondent gave the highest bid of Rs.20,000/- for registration No.PB-05-S-0060 and the said amount was deposited by the respondent in the bank through challan on 06.04.2011.
29. After depositing the above said amount, the respondent applied for the RC, but it was told that as the price of the RC has been increased on 28.02.2011, so he would have to deposit more amount for issuance of the RC. The respondent requested appellant no.2 that he has already deposited the registration fee on 24.02.2011 i.e. Rs.18,730/- as per instructions of the appellant no.2 in the bank and, as such, he is not liable to pay the said enhanced amount.
30. The respondent met with an accident and in the said accident, the car in question was damaged and Rs.52,371/- were spent on repair of the same. The respondent got insured the said car, but due to non-issuance of R.C. by the appellants, the insurance company could not give claim amount to the respondent. Legal notice dated First Appeal No.588 of 2013 13 26.04.2011 was served upon the appellants, but they refused to issue VIP number.
31. It was prayed that the appellants may be directed to issue the registration certificate having VIP number on the basis of already deposited amount of Rs.18,730/- and to pay Rs.52,371/- spent on repair of the car, Rs.40,000/- for mental tension and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
32. The complaint was contested by the appellant no.3, by filing written version on the similar lines of written version of appellants as given in F.A. No.588 of 2013.
33. The District Forum, on the similar observation as given in F.A. No.588 of 2013 as well as that the registration charges of Rs.18,730/- vide receipt challan Ex.C-3 were deposited by the respondent on 24.02.2011 i.e. well before the notification dated 28.02.2011, allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to issue registration certificate of the vehicle of the respondent, being fancy number allotted to him in open auction without charging any extra/increased fee/tax etc., to refund the registration charges got deposited in excess from the respondent taking the actual price of the car as Rs.8,09,582/- and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
34. We have perused the record minutely and have considered the rival contentions of the parties.
35. In the present case, the respondent/complainant deposited Rs.18,730/- as registration fee with appellant no.2 on 24.02.2011 through the bank. Being interested of having VIP number, the respondent participated in the auction held on 04.04.2011 and gave highest bid for No.PB-05-S-0060 i.e. Rs.20,000/- and deposited the First Appeal No.588 of 2013 14 said amount in State Bank of India vide challan form on 06.04.2011. As per version of the appellants, they demanded enhanced registration fee as per notification dated 28.02.2011 from the respondent for issuing registration certificate and VIP number.
36. In this case also, there is no copy of the application on record to prove that the application for getting registration certificate was submitted on 24.02.2011. The bid was conducted on 04.04.2011 and the respondent deposited the bid amount of Rs.20,000/- on 06.04.2011, but as per Clause (iii) of Notification dated 24th October, 2007 issued by the Punjab. Govt., he failed to apply for new registration certificate within seven days after the bid after he was declared successful bidder.
37. In view of above discussion as well as the reasons given in F.A. No.588 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Gursewak Singh), the F.A. No.589 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Om Parkash) is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 22.03.2013 passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. Parties to bear own costs.
38. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.17,500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No.3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
39. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 12.02.2014 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
First Appeal No.588 of 2013 15
40. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
41. Copy of the order be placed in F.A. No.589 of 2013 (State Transport Commissioner, Punjab & Anr. Vs. Om Parkash).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member February 25, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)