Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 50,000 as compensation.

          The case in brief of the complainant is that he had purchased a Tata Sumo-Victa vehicle bearing No.K1-58/963 on 10.08.06 for `5,77,000 from 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and has given ` 50,000 reduction from the sale price as an offer of the dealer by giving ` 22,000 in cash and `28,000 as subsidy by saying that the Tata manufacturing company will remit ` 28,000 in the account of the complainant.  The 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party has collected a blank signed cheque bearing No.143359 of SBT for getting the ` 28,000 and signed blank stamp papers as a security on that day.  At the time of delivery 1^st opposite party has given assurance to the complainant that they would carry out all paper work for getting the subsidy from the Tata Manufacturing company and will be informed to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party was entitled to receive ` 28,000 from the complainant only after crediting ` 28,000 to the account of the complainant.  So far the manufacturing company has not remitted `28,000 in the account.  This was only due to deficiency in service on the part of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party by not submitting the relevant documents before the company in time.  The complainant received a notice from the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party demanding ` 28,000 from the complainant in the month of January, 2008, for which the complainant sent a reply stating all the above facts and requesting 2^nd opposite party to abstain from unwanted litigation.  But 2^nd opposite party filed a false complaint against the complainant, it is evident that the opposite party is trying to misuse the cheque received by them for collecting ` 28,000 which might be credited to the account of the complainant for the subsidy amount.  Since the Tata company has not credited the amount of ` 28,000 in the account of complainant due to the default of 1^st opposite party in submitting relevant records, before the company.  Since the 2^nd opposite party has misused the cheque NO.143359 of SBT, Thalassery Branch and filed a false case under section 138 of NI Act before JFCM VI, Kozhikode, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Now the complainant convinced that 1^st opposite party would not accede to the claim of complainant without recourse to the intervention of the Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant claims ` 12,000 as compensation for the mental agony caused to him.   Because of the false representation of opposite party claims ` 28,000 as compensation from opposite party for filing case against the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version contending that complainant is not a consumer since he has purchased vehicle for commercial purpose.  The complainant is barred by limitation since cause of action for the complaint arose in August, 2006 and was filed on 25.10.2008  and hence it is not maintainable  U/s. 24A of the C.P/. Act.  The complaint is filed as a off shoot of S.T.343/08 filed by opposite party U/s. 138 of N.I. Act and hence the complainant has no bonafide in filing the case.

          The opposite parties admits the purchase of Sumo Victa vehicle on 12.08,2006.  There was no discount of ` 50,000.  But there was a subsidy for commercial vehicles and the complainant was entitled for this.   The amount was to be given by the Central Govt. of India upon an application made by the registered owner of the vehicle through the manufacturer.  The customers are given a conditional rebate by the opposite party at the time of purchase on the understanding that the customer on getting the amount would reimburse the opposite party. The documents for this has to be submitted by the customer by signing by the customer to the Central Excise Office within a period of 180 days. So the opposite parties cannot submit documents.   In normal course, a customer has to pay the full amount of the vehicle to opposite party, take delivery of the vehicle to opposite party, take delivery of the vehicle and obtain rebate from the government.   But in certain cases, the customers are offered a reduction of the amount and later on when the amount is given to the customer by the Government the opposite party is reimbursed of the same.  The complainant in this case was entitled for subsidy of ` 28000 and hence a rebate of the amount was given to him while delivering the vehicle.  This amount was to be paid by him to the opposite party when he got rebate or in the event of him being disentitled for the subsidy.  So the complainant executed an indemnity bond and took delivery of the vehicle.  The complainant has not filed any application within 180 days.  He came to opposite party after about 4 months of taking delivery of the vehicle with documents and at that time the claim is time barred.  The documents are sent to manufacturer as per request of the complainant and from there to Excise department who rejected the claim as it was out of time.  So the complainant is liable to pay ` 28,000 to opposite party and towards the amount handed over a cheque dated 17.12.2007 drawn on SBT, Thalassery branch for ` 28,000 and was presented for encashment and was returned uncleared.  Since there is insufficient balance and a complaint was filed against the complainant U/s 138 of N.I. Act.   This complaint is filed to tackle over the above complaint and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.         Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.         Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 and B1 to B5.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          The case of the complainant is that due to the deficient service of opposite parties the complainant has lost the subsidy amount of `28,000 as excise duty refund, as his vehicle having taxi registration due to the failure on the part of opposite parties to carry out the paper work for getting subsidy in time.  In order to prove the contention he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as copy of R.C., copy of all India tourist permit, copy of tourist permit, copy of judgment in ST 343/08, photocopy of the cheque, indemnity bond, certified copy of the judgement in criminal appeal No.117/09 etc. In order to disprove the case opposite parties have examined DW1 and produced documents such as copy of R.C., copy of requisition by the opposite party to Tata motors, copy of indemnity bond, inward register and rejection of claim issued by Tata Motors to opposite parties.  Admittedly the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 12.08.2006.  Ext.B5 also substantiates this.  According to opposite party, the statutory period prescribed for the application of subsidy is 180 days from the date of release of the vehicle from the factory.  There is no evidence before us to show the release of the vehicle from the factory and the complainant is also not bound to know this date.  So date of release of the vehicle as far as the complainant is concerned is 12.08.06 and hence the application can be made by the complainant within 12.02.2007. This inward register Ext.B4 shows that they have received the documents from the complainant on 12.02.07.   According to the complainant the reason for submitting the documents only on 12.02.2007 is that “h­n FSp¯ Xo¿Xn apX h­n-bp-ambn _Ô-s¸« tcJ-IÄ Fsâ ssIh-i-ap-­m-bn-cp¶p F¶p ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã.  hml\w Tata Motors Bbn-«mWv finance D­m-bn-cp-¶-Xv. h­n-bpsS R.Cbpw Imc-y-§fpw route permit authorizationþ\v th­n Xncp-h-\-´-]p-c-t¯¡v t]mbn-cp-¶p.  h­n taxi Bbn register sNbvXXv OPbmWv.  Taxi registrationþ\v th­n OP1þt\mSv Bh-i-y-s¸-«n-cp-¶p.” But he had submitted the documents on the last day of submission of application.   But the complainant has not issued any letter or request for extension of time for submitting the relevant documents.  So it is seen that there is latches on the part of the complainant iW submitting the application.  Moreover as per the judgment in Criminal appeal 17/09 in ST 343/08 the complainant was acquitted.  So it is seen that the complainant has not suffered any loss.  Above all he had enjoyed the benefit of subsidy amount and hence we are of opinion that he is not entitled to any relief and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, complaint dismissed.  No cost.       

                     Sd/-                         Sd/-                         Sd/-

       President                  Member                   Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of R.C.

A2.  Copy of judgment in S.T.343/08.

A3.  Certified copy of the cheque produced in S.T. 343/08.

A4.  Indemnity bond.

A5.  Certified copy of the judgment in S.C.117/09 before Addl.District 

       Court, Calicut.

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1. Copy of R.C.

B2. Letter dated 13.02.2007.

B3.  Indemnity bond.

B4.  Copy of inward register.

B5.  Letter dated 17.02.2007.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

Witness examined for the opposite party

DW1. Narayanaswamy (affidavit)

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT