RAKESH KUMAR SINGLA PRESIDENT,VOICE OF INDIAN COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT NOW VOICE ORGANIZATION (REGD), 239 Vs. DADA MOTORS PRIVATE LTD. & 3 ORS. SAVITRI COMPLEX, GT ROAD, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, MD LUDHIANA PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant purchased a Tata Indigo VX diesel car from respondent No.1 Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 9.11.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 498954.52. The unit price of the aforesaid vehicle was Rs. 514812.52 and a concession/discount of Rs. 15858.00 having been given to the petitioner/complainant, the actual price paid by him to the car dealer came to Rs. 498954.52. A sum of Rs. 20603 was recovered from him as the life time road tax for the aforesaid vehicle. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that in terms of notification dated 3.11.2011 issued by Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport, the amount of the road tax should have been 2% of the actual price of the vehicle which in this case was Rs. 498954.52.00 Being aggrieved from the recovery of a higher amount from him towards one time road tax, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, impleading the car dealer as well as Govt. of Punjab, State Transport Commissioner and the District Transport Officer as parties to the complaint. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.8.2012 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

(2.) On notice being issued to the respondents Mr. Amardeep Singh, Clerk from District Transport Office, Ludhiana, appeared before this Commission on 25.5.2016 on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, i.e., Govt. of Punjab, Department of Transport, the State Transport Commissioner and the District Transport Officer, Ludhiana. He informed this Commission that the service of a counsel had been denied by the Department in this case. This Commission felt that the aforesaid respondents need to be adequately represented in the matter and, therefore, directed the State Transport Commissioner to ensure adequate representation through a counsel on the next date of hearing. The concerned District Transport Officer was also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing, which was 19.7.2016.

(3.) On 19.7.2016 Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate appeared for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. On that date, the matter was adjourned to 9.8.2016. No one appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 when this matter was called on 9.8.2016 though later on, a proxy counsel appeared on their behalf. The matter was adjourned for today. Today also, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and only Mr. Amardeep Singh, the official of the Department is present on their behalf.