O R D E R Sri. Sathosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 2..11..2010 is as follows: Petitioner, holding valid driving licence, purchased a Chevarlet Tavera Car from second opposite party. First opposite party is the manufacturer and the second opposite party is the dealer of the said car. Opposite parties give vide advertisement in newspapers, magazine and other medias about refund of excise duty amounts to the vehicle purchased under taxi permit. Sales executive of the opposite parties, one Kurian approached the petitioner at Vaikom and he showed the catalogue of the car to be purchased and induced the petitioner to buy the car. At the time of purchase and the petitioner was believed that there was a subsidy of Rs. 35,000/- under the scheme of excise rebate duty. Further more they -2- assured that all necessary things would be done by them for availing the excise duty rebate to the petitioner. Petitioner purchased the said vehicle for self employment purpose and for earning livelihood. On 9..5..2007 petitioner purchased the vehicle for an amount of Rs. 7,45,527/-, by arranging loan from HDFC, Kottayam . Opposite party offered to the petitioner that there were many discounts and concession in price of vehicle. But no discount or concession of price was given to the petitioner. Petitioner was convinced by the opposite parties that if the vehicle was purchased and registered under taxi permit petitioner would get Rs. 35,000/- as subsidy and everything for the same would be arranged by the opposite parties. The vehicle was registered under taxi permit in the name of the petitioner and all the relevant document were submitted to the opposite party soon after the registration in time. Petitioner approached the opposite parties on several occasions for getting subsidy amount after entrusting the relevant document with the opposite parties. According to the petitioner act of opposite party in non-refund of the subsidy amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. Petitioner on 29..4..2008 issued a lawyers notice to the opposite party requesting them to pay compensation for the loss sustained by the petitioner. Notice was received by the opposite party but no amount was paid by the opposite party nor they replied. So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 35,000/- as excise as rebate duty with 12% interest petitioner also prays Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceeding -3- Even though notice was issued to the both parties. 1st Opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version . So, 1st opposite party was set ex-parte. 2nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Second opposite party is the authorized dealer of the passenger car, manufactured by General Motors India Ltd, Halol, Vadodara, Gujarat. As the dealer of the vehicle manufactured by General Motors India Ltd. their responsibility is limited to the extent of sales and after sales service. Second opposite party contented that first opposite party has no branch office at Kottayam . The issue in question arose in the year 2007 and the complainant is time barred. Second opposite party employee sales executives and they do not normally go around and induce people to buy cars offering excise duty refund unless a customer shows an interest to buy a car. Second opposite party admitted the allegation of the petitioner with regard to the excise duty refund on Cheverlet Tavera Car. According to the second opposite party manufacturing company, General Motors India Limited, is liable to refund the excise duty amount 2nd opposite party as the dealer facilitate claim of excise duty refund and forward the same to GMI for further process. . The Government of India will arrange excise duty refund to, GMI Ltd, manufacturer of the vehicle. On vehicle being passes on to the customer he has to register the vehicle as taxi within 3 months, from the GMI invoice date, then submit the required documents to the second opposite party. Second opposite party shall forward the same to GMI. Though the petitioner were made aware of the procedures he submitted a copy of RC -4- Book only on 20..7..2007, before the second opposite party. From the taxi certificate issued by the RTO, Vaikom it can be seen that the certificate was issued after 90 days periods specified by the department. Second opposite party alleged that petitioner had not submitted the required document as instructed within time. So, the petitioner is not entitled for excise duty refund. So, the second opposite party pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? iii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner Point No. 1 Second opposite party taken a contention that the petition is not maintainable because the first opposite party has no branch office at Kottayam. Notice of the first opposite party was issued from the Forum and the notice was served and the AD card was return. Since 1st opposite party has not entered appearance and filed version 1st opposite party is set ex-parte. So the contention of the second opposite party is not sustainable and we find that the fora has territorial jurisdiction and the petition is maintainable before the Fora. -5- Point No. 2 According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in non- refund of the excise duty rebate is a clear deficiency in service. Second opposite party in their version and counter affidavit admitted that petitioner is entitled for excise duty refund. Second opposite party averred that they are only dealer. Refund is given to the customer by the manufacturing company General Motors. The dealer only facilitate the claim for excise duty refund and forward the same to GMI for further process. Second opposite party further contented that petitioner submitted the taxi certificate after 90 days period specified by the department. Government of India fixed a time frame of 30 days for the production of documents. Even though the opposite party has a specific contention that petitioner has not submitted the required documents within time. But the opposite party has not produce any document to prove the time frame fixed by Government of India. So the contention of the opposite party will not sustain. Petitioner produced copy of the lawyers notice issued by the petitioner to the first opposite party said document is marked as Ext. A7. In Ext. A7 petitioner stated that all the relevant document in respect of excise duty refund in submitted to the first opposite party. In a way the petitioner alleges deficiency in service only against the first opposite party . First opposite party has not contested the case. In our view the act of the opposite party in not refunding the excise duty rebate is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 2 is found accordingly. -6- Point No. 3 In view of the finding in the point No. 1 and 2 petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the first opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation, to the petitioner, being the amount entitled to the petitioner as excise duty rebate, with 12% interest from the date of the petition till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. Order shall be complied with within one month of the copy of the receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of the invoice Dt: 9..5..2007 Ext. A2: Copy of temporary registration certificate Dtd: 9..5..2007 Ext. A3: Motor vehicle cover note Dtd: 9..5..2007 Ext. A4: Copy of sales certificate Dtd: 9..5..2007 Ext. A5: Copy of RCD Ext. A6: Copy of driving licence Ext. A7: Copy of lawyers notice Dtd: 24..9..2008 Ext. A8: Copy of AD card Ext. A9: Copy of certificate of witness. Document for the opposite party: Nil. By Order,
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
