BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.138/16.
Date of instt.: 26.05.2016.
Date of Decision: 04.05.2017.
Himat Singh son of Mehar Singh, r/o Village Tontha, Tehsi & District Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Globe Toyota through its Authorized Dealer Globe Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. 3 KMStone, Ambala Road, near New Bye-pass Kaithal.
- Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office & Works, Plot No.1, Bidadi Industrial Area, Distt. Rama Nagar-562109.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Kuldeep Dhull, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Surajbhan, Advocate for the Op No.1.
Sh. Devinder Singh, Adv. & Sh. S.R.Bansal, Adv. for Op No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a vehicle Innova Car bearing registration No.HR-64A/7669 for a sum of Rs.12,71,193/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.INV 150000119 dt. 25.09.2015. It is alleged that the Excise Department launched the scheme from June, 2015 to 22.12.2015 i.e. six months according to invoice. It is further alleged that the complainant deposited the full and final payment to the Op No.1 on 12.10.2015 and completed all the formalities and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 14.10.2015 and Op No.1 issued all the documents regarding the above-said vehicle on 25.09.2015. It is further alleged that all the documents submitted by the complainant to Op No.1 on 19.12.2015 and mentioned the entry of the complainant’s vehicle No.HR-64A/7669 at Sr.No.13 on 19.12.2015. It is further alleged that the Excise Department launched a scheme that the excise duty refund will be eligible only within 6 months from the date of TKM invoice date as per the notification No.12/2012 as amended. It is further alleged that the Op No.1 sent the relevant documents to Op No.2 on 05.01.2016, whereas the said documents should have been sent to Op No.2 till 22.12.2015 and limitation of depositing the relevant documents with the Op No.2 expired. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed replies separately. Op No.1 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, therefore, the same does not fall within the purview of C.P.Act as the same is evident from the fact the notification about which the complainant is talking about applies to the vehicles purchased for commercial purpose i.e. for running the same as taxi; that the complainant was informed on 25.09.2015 that in order to get the excise duty refund, he has to submit the RC of the vehicle alongwith the Taxi Permit well before 22.12.2015 so that the documents are dispatched to Op No.2 but the complainant visited the answering Op On 05.01.2016 and submitted the documents on that very day; that the complainant was apprised that the claim has already been expired on 22.12.2015, however, the answering Op will dispatch the relevant documents to TKM without any delay, subject to final decision by the concerned authorities in this regard. As such, the answering Op dispatched all the documents to the Op No.2 through courier on the next day i.e. 06.01.2016; that the said documents were received by Op No.2 on 09.01.2016 and as such, they rejected the claim of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed reply raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The true facts are that as per the relevant notification No.12 of 2012 of Central Excise, any applicant is entitled to file and maintain an application for excise refund before expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty on the subject vehicle; that the vehicle in question purchased by the complainant was sold by answering Op to Op No.1 vide invoice dt. 25.06.2015 which was in the knowledge of the complainant; that the application seeking excise refund alongwith relevant documents was received by the answering Op, as forwarded by the complainant through Op No.1, on 09.01.2016. However, after receipt of the documents, the claim case was returned to the Op No.1 vide communication dt. 14.01.2016. The said communication which was addressed to the Op No.1 intimating that the Excise Claim had not been forwarded within the limitation period of six months and as such, the same had become time-barred. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. The complainant did not tender any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of complainant was closed vide order of this Forum on 03.04.2017. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Mark-RA to Mark-RC and closed evidence on 23.01.2017. Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R-16 and closed evidence on 23.02.2017.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
6. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant purchased a vehicle Innova Car bearing registration No.HR-64A/7669 for a sum of Rs.12,71,193/- from Op No.1 vide bill No.INV 150000119 dt. 25.09.2015. He further argued that the Excise Department launched the scheme for the refund of excise duty from June, 2015 to 22.12.2015 i.e. six months according to notification No.12/2012. He further argued that the complainant deposited the full and final payment to the Op No.1 on 12.10.2015. He further argued that the complainant submitted all the requisite documents to Op No.1 on 19.12.2015. He referred the entry of the complainant’s vehicle No.HR-64A/7669 at Sr.No.13 on 19.12.2015. He further argued that the Op No.1 sent the relevant documents to Op No.2 on 05.01.2016, whereas the said documents should have been sent to Op No.2 till 22.12.2015 and limitation of depositing the relevant documents with the Op No.2 expired. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 argued that the complainant submitted the documents with the Op No.1 on 05.01.2016 and the complainant was apprised that the claim has already been expired on 22.12.2015, however, the Op No.1 would dispatch the relevant documents to TKM without any delay subject to final decision by the concerned authorities. He further argued that the Op No.1 dispatched all the documents to the Op No.2 through courier on the next day i.e. 06.01.2016 and the said documents were received by Op No.2 on 09.01.2016 and as such, they rejected the claim of complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Op No.2 argued that the application seeking excise refund alongwith relevant documents was received by the Op No.2 on 09.01.2016. He further argued that after receipt of the documents, the claim case was returned to the Op No.1 vide communication dt. 14.01.2016. He further argued that the Excise Claim had not been forwarded within the limitation period of six months and as such, the same had become time-barred.
7. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is regarding the submission of claim for the refund of excise duty only. According to the complainant, he submitted all the documents on 19.12.2015 with the Op No.1, whereas according to Op No.1, the documents were submitted by the complainant on 05.01.2016. The complainant has placed the copy of entry register of OP No.1, though not tendered in evidence, according to which, there is an entry in the register regarding the entrance of the vehicle of complainant in the agency of Op No.1 but from this register, it is not proved that the documents regarding the refund of excise duty were submitted with the Op No.1 or not, whereas on the other hand, the Op No.1 has placed a receipt, Annexure-R1/3, which is regarding the full and final settlement to excise duty refund. This receipt, Annexure-R1/3 bears the signature of the complainant and the same is dated 05.01.2016. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued regarding this receipt that the amount has not been filled in the receipt. No doubt, the amount has not been filled-in in this receipt but the said receipt is regarding the refund of excise duty vide notification No.12/2012 CE dated 1703-2012. As already stated above that this receipt is dt. 05.01.2016 which means that the complainant has submitted the documents regarding refund of excise duty on 05.01.2016 with the Op No.1. The complainant has not produced any document which could prove that the complainant had submitted the documents regarding refund of excise duty with the Op No.1 on 19.12.2015. Moreover, the complainant has not tendered into evidence any document including affidavit and the evidence of complainant was closed by order of this forum on 03.04.2017. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.04.05.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
