Maruti Udyog Limited vs ANSI D SILVA

ANSI D. Silva filed a complaint with the District Forum Kozhikode stating that he has 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.

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 dated 29. 4. 1999 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 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.

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:

LEARNED 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. 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 issuance 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.

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 and Another v. State of Kerala 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 and, so much so, the petitioners cannot contend that arrears of tax, if any, should be recovered from the manufacturer. The petitioners are directed to approach the R. T. O. 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. 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. R. P. allowed.