Home
Consumer Case Studies
 
National Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, New Delhi

K S Gupta, Presiding Member and P D Shenoy, Member

Maruti Udyog Limited - Petitioner

Versus

Ansi D Silva - Respondent
 
Revision Petition No. 2750 of 2002
Decided on 31-7-2007

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(r) and 21(b) - Revision petition against finding of unfair trade practice - Motor Vehicles Taxation Act - Section 3(3) - Liability to pay Road Tax - On Registered owner of vehicle or the person in possession and control of vehicle - Maruti Zen sold in April 1998 with weight of unladen car as 730 kg. - RTO demanding on 755 kg - Complaint to District Forum - Holding unfair trade practice and granting compensation - Affirmed in appeal - Whether correct? (No) - Demand by RTO on misinterpretation of circular pertaining to other models of Maruti Zen - Not an unfair trade practice - Proper remedy - To approach RTO for actual weight verification and adjustment - Revision allowed - Kerala High Court judgment relied on.

Important Point

Demand of Higher Road Tax by RTO on misinterpretation of circular on unladen weight of vehicle Maruti Zen is not an unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The Complainant should approach RTO for weighing of vehicle and removal of error instead of blaming the manufacturer or dealer for verifying the figure of unladen weight shown in Road tax Registration Certificate.

Order

Dr P D Shenoy, Member - Ansi D Silva filed a complaint with the District Forum Kozhikode stating that he had purchased one Maruti Zen car as per invoice dated 27.4.1998 by paying an amount of Rs. 3,69,935/-. As per the sales certificate issued by Popular Vehicles and Services Ltd, dealer of the Maruti Udyog Ltd, the unladen weight of the Maruti Zen car was shown as 730 kg. Accordingly, the Complainant had paid one time life tax to the tune of Rs. 14,000/-. The Complainant received a demand notice from the Regional Transport Officer directing him to remit the balance amount of Rs. 4,800/-towards tax, stating that the actual unladen weight of Maruti Zen car was 755 kgs.

2.
Aggrieved by this notice, he filed a complaint in the District Forum seeking refund of this amount and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards damages towards unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the opposite parties - the dealer and the manufacturer. This complaint was contested by Maruti Udyog, which stated that the unladen weight of the Maruti Zen sold to the Complainant in April 1998 was actually 730 kgs. However, later on, as per the directions of the Supreme Court on 29.4.99, Maruti Udyog started producing Maruti Zen Euro- 1, Euro-2 models of the car with the unladen weight of 755 kgs and 765 kgs, respectively. Copies of the specification of all models were circulated by the Commissioner (Transport) to all Regional Transport Authorities for the purpose of registration.

3.
The District Forum after hearing the parties held that there was unfair trade practice on behalf of the opposite parties and directed them to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the Complainant along with the cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

4.
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Maruti Udyog Ltd had filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied by this order, Maruti Udyog Ltd has filed this revision petition.

Findings:

5.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had submitted that this car was sold in 1998 and its unladen weight was only 730 kgs. Euro-1 and Euro-2 models were introduced subsequent to the judgment of Supreme Court on 29.4.1999 and weight of unladen car was increased to 755 and 765 kgs, respectively.

6.
As it is clear from the records that this car was sold on 27.4.1998, the Complainant should have approached the RTO, as it is apparent that there was a grievance against the RTO. It appears RTO had misinterpreted the circular pertaining to Euro-1 and Euro- 2 models and asked the Complainant to pay additional tax. Before issual of the notice to the Complainant for higher taxes, neither the dealer nor the Maruti Udyog Ltd were summoned. It is difficult to believe the contention of the Complainant that to allure the customers, the opposite parties have indicated a lower unladen weight, so as to show that they have to pay lesser tax.

7.
In this connection, it is worthwhile to look into the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in O. P. No. 28400 of 2001, P.V. Musa & Another v. State of Kerla and Others, delivered on 10.2.2002 wherein it was held that levy and collection of tax contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is on the registered owner or the person in possession and control of the vehicle. The Petitioners cannot contend that arrears of tax, if any, should be recovered from the manufacturer.

8.
The Petitioners are directed to approach the RTO with a copy of the judgment and he will take a decision, if necessary, after weighing the vehicles within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the Petitioners. If the Petitioners are found to be not liable to pay tax at higher rate and if tax at higher rate is already collected, the same will be adjusted towards tax due for the future or otherwise refunded to the Petitioners.

9.
In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the lower Fora is set aside. The Respondent-Complainant is given liberty to approach RTO for relief, if any, as per the judgment of the High Court (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.

Revision allowed accordingly.