Aneesha Sareen
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, June 11
Finding the Registration and Licensing Authority (RLA) in Sector 17 guilty of deficiency in service, the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has directed the Registration and Licensing Officer, Municipal Corporation building, Sector 17, to pay Rs 6,000 on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and causing mental and physical agony to a Sector 36 resident.
The officer has also been directed to refund the excess road tax charged from the complainant and to pay Rs 4,000 towards the cost of litigation. The RLA is in the dock for overcharging a city resident for the payment of road tax as the car owner was asked to shell out the revised rates while he had completed all formalities and submitted his file to the RLA well before the new rates were imposed.
The complainant, Maninder Jit Singh, a resident of Sector 36-B, stated in his complaint that he had purchased a Hyundai i10 car bearing the registration number (HR 03 Q 3630) on July 6, 2014, registered with the Registration Authority, Panchkula. The complainant also got an NOC for the transfer of the said car to Chandigarh on July 20, 2014. It has been averred that the complainant completed all formalities for the transfer of the vehicle and on July 30, 2014, he was asked to come on September 15, 2014, that is after the expiry of 45 days for verification/ receipt of the report of the NOC. On September 15, he was asked to get the vehicle passed and also to get the police report afresh. After completing the desired formalities, finally, on September 24, his file was submitted in the office of the RLA, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
However, to his utter surprise, he was informed on October 10, that since the road tax had been revised with effect from October 1, 2014, instead of approximately Rs 2,200 (the earlier road tax), now he would have to pay the revised road tax of Rs 21,060. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant paid the amount.
It has been alleged that since the complainant had completed all formalities and submitted the file in the office of the RLA on September 25, the revised rates could not be made applicable with retrospective effect.
The UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided over by PL Ahuja, president, and members Surjeet Kaur and Suresh Kumar Sardana, stated that no proof had been produced on record by the RLA that they had informed the complainant about depositing the fees before September 30.
“We are of the concerted view that the RLA has been found deficient in providing proper service to the complainant and has indulged in unfair trade practice,” said the forum.
