KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 181/2008
JUDGMENT DATED:21-03-2011
PRESENT:
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Formerly Known as
(M/s Maruti Udyog Limited),
11th floor, Jeevan Prakash, : APPELLANT
25, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,
New Delhi-110 001.
(By Adv: Sri.V.santharam & S.Suresh)
Vs.
1. Anu Antony,
S/o Sh. A.G.Antony,
R/o Ambooken House,
Chandapura Road,
Irinjalakuda.
(By Adv:Sri.R.S.Kalkura)
2. M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,
Railway Station Road, Thrissur. : RESPONDENTS
3. M/s Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director,
Kuttukaran Centre, Mamamgalam,
Kochi – 682 025.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the 3rd opposite party and respondents 1 to 3 were the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively in CC.473/06 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party in his failure to issue manufacturer’s certificate for obtaining concession in remitting excise duty. It was alleged that the complainant suffered financial loss and thereby claimed compensation of Rs.1.lakh from the opposite parties with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service on their part. They further contended that the complainant booked for a Maruti Swift LXI car and never approached the opposite parties 1 and 2 to avail the excise duty concession available to physically handicapped person; that the opposite parties being the dealers of the vehicle promptly delivered the car to the complainant; that there is absolutely no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The 3rd opposite party filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. It was contented that the complainant was not eligible for the excise duty concession as he has not applied for the particular model of vehicle used by handicapped persons; that the complainant purchased Swift LXI model which was not designed for the use of handicapped persons; that the complainant has not incurred any loss due to act or omission or commission on the part of the 3rd opposite party. Thus, the 3rd opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Before the Forum below Exts.P1 to P8 and R1 to R4 documents were produced and marked from the side of the parties to the complaint in CC.473/06. On an appreciation of the documentary evidence on record and the proof affidavits filed by the parties, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:16th June 2008 directing the 3rd opposite party (appellant) to pay Rs.99,890/- to the complainant by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the 3rd opposite party therein.
5. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant/3rd opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the 1st respondent/complainant was not eligible to get the excise duty concession as the vehicle purchased by the complainant/customer was not designed for the use of physically handicapped persons. It is also submitted that the appellant/3rd opposite party did not get an application from the complainant for issuing the manufacturer’s certificate. The appellant has also challenged the quantum of compensation ordered by the Forum. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and argued for the position that there was deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/3rd opposite party in issuing manufacturer’s certificate for availing the excise duty concession. Thus, the 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. The respondents 2 and 3 supported the case of the appellant and further submitted that no order has been passed against the respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 1 and 2).
6. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/3rd opposite party in issuing manufacturer’s certificate to the complainant Anu Antony for availing the excise duty concession with respect to the purchase of the Maruti Swift Car manufactured by the appellant/3rd opposite party, Marti Udyog Ltd?
2. Whether the Forum below can be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.99.890/- to the 1st respondent/ complainant?
7. Points 1 and 2:-
There is no dispute that the 1st respondent/complainant, Anu Antony booked a Maurti Swift Car by placing R1 order booking form. The aforesaid order booking form was submitted by the complainant on 8/6/2005 with the respondents 2 and 3 (opposite parties 1 and 2), the dealers of the Maruti Ugyog Vehicles. As per R1 order booking form the 1st respondent/complainant booked Maruti Swift LXI car by depositing Rs.50,000/-. There is no whisper in R1 order booking form indicating the fact that the complainant/customer is a handicapped person or that he is interested in getting the excise duty concession. So, in the ordinary course the opposite parties 1 and 2 being the dealers of the said vehicle took the order booking form by treating the complainant as an ordinary customer and thereby they delivered the vehicle to the complainant by collecting the value of the vehicle including excise duty and vat. Ext.P3 is the invoice dated:20/1/2006. It would show that the complainant purchased Maruti Swfit car by remitting a total consideration of Rs.3,99,132/-. So, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the dealers(opposite parties 1 and 2) in delivering the vehicle based on R1 order booking form dated:8/6/2005. The delivery of the vehicle on 20/1/2006 is also admitted by the parties to the complaint. Therefore, the Forum below has rightly exonerated the opposite parties 1 and 2 from the liability to pay any compensation to the complainant.
8. The definite case of the 1st respondent/complainant is that he is a handicapped person and eligible for excise duty concession and other tax concessions. The fact that the 1st respondent/complainant, Anu Antony is a physically handicapped person is proved by P6 certificate issued by the medical board for the physically handicapped, medical college hospital, Thrissur. It is signed by the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thrissur as the Chairman of the Medical Board. The said certificate is dated:28/4/2004. The members of the Medical Board are specialists from Orthopedic Department, Physical medicine, Ophthalmology, ENT and Psychiatry. As per P6 certificate the complainant Anu Antony is having severe hearing disability of 90%.
9. Ext.P7 is copy of the certificate issued by Civil Suregon, Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Iringalakkuda. The aforesaid certificate would show that the complainant Anu Antony is having hearing disability at 90% and for that disability he is using of hearing aid. It is further certified that the complainant Anu Antony is fit to drive a passenger car inspite of the above disability.
10. It is the definite case of the complainant that he is being a physically handicapped person having hearing disability was eligible to get excise duty concession and other tax concessions in the purchase of Maruti Swift LXI car from the opposite parties 1 to 3. There is nothing on record to show that the claim for excise duty concession etc. was not available to the complainant being a handicapped person. The further case of the 1st respondent/ complainant is that for availing the aforesaid excise duty concession/rebate the complainant was in need of manufacturers certificate which ought to have been issued by the 3rd opposite party, the manufacturer of the Maruti Swift LXI car. There is no dispute that the appellant/3rd opposite party was the manufacturer of the Maruti Swift LXI car which the complainant purchased by placing or booking form on 8/6/2005 and that the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 20/1/2006. It is true that the purchase of the said vehicle was through the dealers of the manufacturer. Opposite parties 1 and 2 (respondents 2 and 3) are the dealers of the said vehicle. Appellant/3rd opposite party has also admitted that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorized dealers of the said vehicle. Appellant/3rd opposite party has also admitted that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorized dealers of the vehicles manufactured by the 3rd opposite party/Maruti Udyog Limited. The further case of the appellant/3rd opposite party that the relationship between the manufacturer and the dealers was that of principal to principal basis cannot be accepted. It is true that the appellant/3rd opposite party produced a portion of the dealership agreement entered into between the manufacturer and the dealer. It is to be noted that the 1st respondent/complainant is not a party to the said agreement. He was also not aware of such a dealership agreement entered into between the manufacturer and its dealers. So, R2 agreement will not bind the complainant. As far as the complainant/ purchaser of the vehicle is concerned, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorized dealers of the vehicles manufactured by the 3rd opposite party/Maruti Udyog Limited. So, the 3rd opposite party being the manufacturer of the vehicle was bound to issue the manufacturer’s certificate to the complainant for availing the excise duty concession. If there occurred any lapse or omission on the part of the 3rd opposite party in issuing such a certificate it would amount to deficiency of service.
11. The 1st respondent/complainant approached the 3rd opposite party/manufacturer of the vehicle for issuing manufacturer’s certificate, for the purpose of availing the concession of excise duty with respect to the purchase of the vehicle Maruti Swift LXI manufactured by the appellant/3rd opposite party. Ext.P1 is the letter dated:29th August 2005 issued by the Regional Manager of Maruti Udyog Limited. As per Ext.P1 letter the complainant the Regional Manager of the manufacturer, Maruti Udyog Limited requested the 1st respondent/complainant, Anu Antony to address the Deputy General Manager (C.R.M) Maruti Udyog Limited; New Delhi. As per P1 letter it was instructed to approach the Deputy General Manager CRM with the original medical certificate along with a photograph of the person showing the disability and also with copy of the order booking form. Ext.P1 letter would also make it clear that the complainant had requested the under signed viz. the Regional Manager Maruti Udyog Limited, Kochi to issue manufacturer’s certificate for obtaining excise duty concession. The aforesaid letter dated:10/8/2005 issued by the complainant is also referred to in P1 letter. It is the definite case of the complainant, Anu Antony that he addressed the Deputy General Manager, CRM Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi for obtaining the manufacturer’s certificate, in order to avail the excise duty concession. It is also the case of the complainant that along with the said application he had also enclosed the original medical certificate with photograph and copy of the order booking form as instructed the appellant/3rd opposite party has got a case that the 1st respondent/complainant never approached the 3rd opposite party with the necessary documents to get the manufacturer’s certificate. But Ext.P2 letter issued by Superintendent of Post offices, Iringalakkuda Division, Iringalakkuda would make it clear that the complainant had addressed the Deputy General Manager, CRM Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi by a registered letter No.1708 dtd:30/8/2005 and the said registered letter was served upon the addressee viz. Deputy General Manager, CRM Maruti Udyog Limited, Kasthurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi on 2/9/2005. So, Ext.P2 letter would establish the case of the complainant that he had addressed the DGM, CRM Maruti Udyog Limited, Kasthurba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi as instructed by the Regional Manager, Maruti Udyog Limited, Kochi. But the 3rd opposite party, the Deputy General Manager, CRM, Maruthi Udyog Limited, New Delhi did not respond to the letter issued by the complainant requesting for issuance of manufacturer’s certificate. So, the aforesaid inaction on the part of the 3rd opposite party would amount to deficiency of service. It was incumbent upon the 3rd opposite party to issue reply to the said letter issued by the complainant. It is further to be noted that the complainant approached the Under Secretary to the Government of India to obtain the excise duty concession. It was on the basis of the letter received from the Under Secretary to Government of India, the complainant approached the manufacturer to issue manufacturer’s certificate. The 3rd opposite party being the manufacturer of the vehicle was bound to issue the manufacturer,s certificate or to refuse the said certificate stating the ground or reason for the refusal. But in this case the 3rd opposite party kept silence for a pretty long time till the complainant approached the Forum below by preferring the consumer No.473/06.
12. The present case of the appellant/opposite party that the 1st respondent/complainant was not eligible for the excise duty concession cannot be accepted as such. Ext.R3 copy of the sales policy bulletin issued by the manufacturer would only stipulate the procedure to be followed to get the excise duty concession with respect to the particular vehicles viz, Maruti Zen Variants. But there is nothing on record to show that the complainant being physically handicapped having hearing impairment is not entitled to get the excise duty concession. On the other hand, the definite case of the complainant/consumer is that excise duty concession is available to physically handicapped persons on purchase of motor vehicles. So, the case of the appellant/3rd opposite party that the complainant was not eligible for excise duty concession cannot be believed or accepted. At any rate, there was deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party in his failure to respond to the request made by the complainant for getting excise duty concession. The 3rd opposite party being the Deputy General Manager of the manufacturer was authorized to issue manufacturer’s certificate to the customers who intended to purchase the vehicles manufactured by Maruti Udyog Limited, Ext.P1 letter would also show that the Deputy General Manager, CRM Maruti Udyog Limited, New Delhi was the competent authority to issue manufacturer’s certificate for getting excise duty concession. So, the failure or omission on the part of the 3rd opposite party in not entertaining the request made by the complainant with respect to the issuance of manufacturer’s certificate would amount to deficiency of service. So, the 3rd opposite party is to be made liable to pay compensation to the complainant/consumer.
13. The 1st respondent/complainant claimed Rs.1.lakh by way of compensation. But there is nothing on record to show that the complainant suffered financial loss of Rs.1.lakh. There is no evidence available on record to prove the financial loss suffered by the complainant. The definite case of the appellant is that the excise duty was 16% and the concessional rate of excise duty would come to 8%. If that be so, the financial loss suffered by the complainant would not come to Rs.1.lakh. It is further to be noted that the complainant is at liberty to avail the excise duty concession in the event of purchase of any other vehicle. It is also to be noted that there was negligence on the part of the complainant in making the request for the excise duty concession while submitting Ext.R1 order booking form. If such a request, was made there was no necessity for the complainant to remit Rs.50,000/- as advance. The complainant had to pay only Rs.25,000/- by way of advance. Ext.R4 sales policy bulletin issued by the manufacturer would show the procedure to be followed by a customer who is interested in getting the excise duty concession available to handicapped persons. But in the present case the complainant failed to inform the dealer regarding the eligibility of the complainant to get the excise duty concession on the ground of his physical disability. There was contributory negligence on the part of the 1st respondent/complainant. Ext.R1 order booking form would also make it clear that the complainant had no intention to avail the excise duty concession while submitting order booking form on 8/6/2005. It can be seen that the complainant got such an idea of availing excise duty concession subsequent to the booking of the vehicle. The Forum below cannot be justified in awarding compensation of Rs.99,890/- to the complainant. It is to be noted that the Forum below was expected to award compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party/manufacturer. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was also entitled to get concession on sales tax and insurance premium. There is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid claim made by the complainant. Considering the facts, circumstances and the nature of the deficiency of service, this State Commission is of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be treated as reasonable compensation due to the complainant for the deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party. So, the compensation of Rs.99,890/- awarded by the Forum below is set aside/modified and the appellant/3rd opposite party is made liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent/complainant. The aforesaid compensation of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint in CC.473/06. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout. These points are answered accordingly.
In the result appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated:16th June 2008 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in CC.473/06 is modified and thereby the appellant/3rd opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent/complainant by way of compensation for the deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/3rd opposite party. The order directing payment of compensation of Rs.99,890/- is modified as indicated above. The interest ordered by the Forum below at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of complaint in CC.473/06 is confirmed. The aforesaid interest will be calculated on the awarded amount of Rs.10,000/-. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout.
M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VL.
