Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/575

Rupinder singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dada Motors - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Dadul

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                                 C.C. No: 575 of 21.08.2014

                                                                     Date of Decision: 16.04.2015

Rupinder Singh son of Jagdev Singh, resident of H.No.745-G, S.B.S.Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                                          … Complainant

                                      Versus

M/s Dada Motors, B-XXIX/526, Giaspura, G.T.Road, Opposite Dhandari Station, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Director/Manager.

                                                                             … Opposite party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

 

Quorum:     Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

Ms.Babita, Member.

 

Present:       Proxy counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate for Op.

                        ORDER 

(R.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                Present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Rupinder Singh(herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Complainant’) against M/s Dada Motors, B-XXIX/526, Giaspura, G.T.Road, Opposite Dhandari Station, Ludhiana through its Managing Director/Director/Manager (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to refund the amount of Rs.40,753/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. besides Rs.1 lakh as damages on account of mental tension and agony by given by the OP and other benefits to the complainant.

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a vehicle make Terrano XVD(THP) vide invoice No.VSLA13000547 dated 27.2.2014 for an amount of Rs.12,60,528/-. At the time of sale of the vehicle, their officials represented the complainant that this price of the vehicle is accurate as per the Nissan Vehicles Prices Lists, believing the version of the OP to be true, the complainant purchased the said vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant was astonished to see the price list issued by M/s Nissan Prices List from 27.2.2014 onwards, in which, the cost of the vehicle was mentioned as Rs.12,19,775/- as the comp0any has given the Excise Reduction Benefit amounting to Rs.40,753/-, but their company officials did not disclose the said fact to the complainant intentionally and willfully just to grab the amount of Rs.40,753/-. When this fact came to the notice of the complainant, he requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.40,753/-, but officials of OP did not accede to the request of the complainant and rather, threatened the complainant. The complainant has suffered a great mental tension, harassment and agony as well as financial loss on account of deficiency in service on the part of OP. A registered legal notice dated 17.4.2014 was served by the complainant through his counsel upon the OP to refund the amount of Rs.40,753/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. but the same with no result. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice of the complaint, OP was duly served and appeared through Sh.Vikas Gupta, Advocate and filed the written reply, in which, it has been submitted in the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable against the answering OP as no cause of action ever accrued to the complainant against the answering OP and the answering OP has not at all committed any wrong nor there is any deficiency in service on its part. The allegations raised in the complaint are totally false, frivolous and vexatious having no iota of truth therein, rather the same has been filed only to extort money from the answering OP by blackmailing them without any fault on their part. As such, the answering OP has been unnecessarily dragged by the complainant in the present false complaint. The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the dispute is of the excise of the vehicle which could not be decided by this District Forum. The excise refund dispute comes under the Central Excise Act and the duty refund can be claimed under Section 11b of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by filing an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise before expiry of one year from the relevant date.(in such a form and manner) as may be prescribed in and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from or paid by him and the incidence of such duty had not been passed on by him to any other person. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant failed to implead the manufacturer of the vehicle Nissan India Motors who had taken the amount of excise at the time of billing of vehicle to the answering OP. The complainant also failed to implead the assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as necessary party. The excise deposited with the government can only be refunded by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise as mentioned in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Further, the complainant has raised false allegations that the answering OP had taken the refund from the Government but not give to the complainant. The answering OP had just sold the vehicle and only charged the vat from the complainant and the excise was already paid by the answering OP to the manufacturer of the vehicle when the same was billed to the answering OP by the manufacturer of the vehicle, as such, the refund of that amount does not arise at all. The vehicle was delivered by the answering OP to the complainant on 9.2.2014 and the vehicle was only billed on 27.2.2014, as such, the complainant is not liable to get the refund of the same as the manufacturer of the vehicle had verified the stock of the answering OP and given the refund on the vehicles which were present(not sold) in the premises of the answering OP at the time of inspection by the manufacturer and the answering OP had not taken the refund of the excise from the manufacturer of the vehicle of the complainant. On merits, the fact regarding purchase of the vehicle in question from the answering OP is admitted. However, it is submitted that the answering OP had charged the price of the vehicle from the complainant which was applicable at the time of sale of the vehicle and nothing extra was charged from the complainant. It is denied that the price list was issued by the M/s Nissan rather, the same was prepared by the answering OP and which was applicable to the vehicles delivered from 27.2.2014 on wards. It is admitted that the price of the vehicle was Rs.12,19,775/- and the excise benefit was Rs.40,753/- and this was applicable on the vehicles delivered on 27.2.2014 onwards.  Otherwise, similar pleas were taken as taken in the preliminary objections and at the end, denying all other allegations of the complaint being wrong and incorrect, answering OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint. Further, learned counsel for the complainant has proved on record documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered into evidence Ex.RA of Sh.Indermohan Pal Singh, its Law Officer, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the written reply filed by the OP and rebutted the case of the complainant. Further, learned counsel for the OP has proved on record documents Ex.OP1 to OP5.

6.                We have heard the proxy counsel for the counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP.

7.                Proxy counsel for the complainant has filed the written synopsis, in which, he has reiterated all the contents of the complaint and made prayer for the relief as claimed for by alleging that the acts of the OP clearly amount to unfair trade practice towards the complainant and further, written statement filed by the OP is claimed to be totally false and frivolous.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has contended that as per the allegations of the complainant that he had purchased the vehicle in question on 27.2.2014 from the OP for an amount of Rs.12,60,528/-. Further, it has been contended that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.12,19,775/- as the company had given the Excise Reduction Benefit amounting to Rs.40,753/- as per the list issued by the M/s Nissan Prices List from 27.2.2014. It has also been contended that OP had rightly charged the excess amount of Rs.40,753/- as the delivery of the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant on 9.2.2014. However, the vehicle in question was billed on 27.2.2014. The complainant has neither impleaded M/s Nissan, who is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question, who charged the excise duty nor the complainant has impleaded the Excise Department who get refund of the amount. The Op had only sold the vehicle in question and had charged the amount of Rs.12,60,528/- including VAT which is evident from copy of sale invoice dated 27.2.2014.

9.                We have gone through the written synopsis filed by the proxy counsel for the complainant and have carefully heard the learned counsel for the OP and have also perused the documents on record very carefully.

10.              Perusal of the record reveals that it is an undisputed fact on record that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question i.e.Terrano XVD(THP) from the OP vide sale invoice No.VSLA13000547 dated 27.2.2014 for an amount of Rs.12,60,528/-. Perusal of the evidence of the complainant reveals that the complainant has placed on record copy of sale invoice as Ex.C1 which is dated 27.2.2014, vide which, he had purchased the aforesaid vehicle for an amount of Rs.12,60,528/- which includes VAT @14.30% which comes to Rs.1,57,703.85P. Complainant has further relied upon copy of Nissan Vehicle Price List(From 27.2.2014 onwards) as Ex.C2, vide which, the ex-showroom(before excise reduction) of the vehicle in question has been shown as Rs.12,60,528/- and ex-showroom(new) has been shown as 12,19,775/-. The complainant has further relied upon copy of delivery challan Ex.C3 which is dated 9.2.2014, meaning thereby that delivery of the vehicle in question was taken by the complainant on 9.2.2014 and he had put his signature on this delivery challen in token of having receipt of the vehicle and got the sale invoice Ex.C1 issued on 27.2.2014 due to the reason best known to him. The complainant has neither impleaded M/s Nissan Motors India Ltd i.e. the manufacturer of the vehicle in question who had charged the excise duty on his product nor the complainant has impleaded the Excise Department in order to get refund of this amount and has only impleaded the present OP i.e. dealer of M/s Nissan Motors India Ltd. Perusal of the sale invoice Ex.C1 reveals that there is no mention qua the fact of specific charge of excise duty of Rs.40,753/- nor the complainant has summoned any record of the manufacturer or the Excise Department in order to prove the plea taken in the complaint.

11.              So, from the evidence of the complainant, it appears that the complainant has failed to prove sufficient evidence in order to prove his allegations against the OP.

12.               In view of the above discussion, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant being devoid of any merit. Copy of this order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room after due completion.

 

                 (Babita          )                  (Sat Paul Garg)             (R.L.Ahuja)

               Member                             Member                       President 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:16.04.2015

Gurpreet Sharma