By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: <br /> <br /> The averments in the petition is as follows:<br /> <br /> 1. Petitioner purchased one Maruti Car-Swift from first and second respondents and 3rd respondent is the manufacturer of the vehicle. Petitioner is eligible for the excise duty concession as petitioner is physically handicapped person. Petitioner booked the said vehicle on 8.6.2005 as per order booking No.2701/1743 and got delivery of the vehicle on 21.1.2006. Petitioner applied for excise duty concession along with all relevant documents. Subsequently, petitioner received a letter from the Under Secretary to the Government of India dated 2.8.2005 asking manufacturer’s certificate, certifying that the said car is suitable to be driven by petitioner, and upon this, petitioner sent letter to third respondent. Then, third respondent requested petitioner vide their letter dated 29.8.2005 to apply for the above certificate in writing to the 3rd respondent enclosing therewith original Medical Certificate together with a photograph of the person showing the disability and a copy of the order booking form. Petitioner acted as per the letter referred to above, but in vain. Till date, 3rd respondent has not issued the manufacturer’s certificate to the petitioner regarding the suitability of usage by handicapped person. The act of respondents is illegal and against natural justice. So the petitioner lost excise duty concession, sales tax concession and insurance benefits, and as a result, petitioner sustained heavy loss. Petitioner sent lawyer notice to the respondents dated 28.2.2006 but of no use. Hence this complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Respondents-1 and 2 filed counter to the effect that the petitioner has not informed the first and second respondents that he is a handicapped person and that he wanted to avail the excise duty concession available to physically handicapped person. Respondents-1 and 2 are totally unaware of the attempts of the complainant for obtaining excise duty concession available to a physically handicapped person. So these respondents are not responsible to compensate the petitioner. <br /> <br /> 3. The counter of 3rd respondent in brief is as follows: The complainant is not entitled to excise duty benefits on the vehicle bought by him as the said car is not declared fit and suitable for handicapped person. Therefore, the question for issuing any certificate certifying that Maruti Swift Lxi is suitable to be sold to a handicapped person, cannot and does not arise. The complainant does not satisfy the requirement of central government for claiming excise duty benefits and as such is not entitled to excise duty rebate. The 3rd respondent being the manufacturer of the vehicle has paid the full excise duty to the central government. The complainant booked the vehicle in question with the first respondent as an ordinary customer. Merely alleging complainant being physically handicapped is not sufficient to make him eligible for concessional excise duty rebate on the vehicle meant for handicapped persons. No loss has been incurred by the complainant due to any act of omission or commission on the part of this respondent. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> <br /> (1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for an award as prayed?<br /> (2) Reliefs and costs. <br /> <br /> 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P8 and Exts. R1 to R4.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1: According to the petitioner he is eligible for the excise duty concession as petitioner is physically handicapped person. He has booked the vehicle on 8.6.05 and delivered the same on 21.1.06. Ext. P1 shows that on 10.8.05 the petitioner has sent letter to the Maruti Udyog Limited, Cochin regar5ding excise duty concession certificate. From Ext. P2 it can be seen that the petitioner had contacted 3rd respondent and they accepted the letter on 2.9.05. In the counter the third respondent has stated that the complainant is not entitled to excise duty benefits as the said car is not declared fit for handicapped person. So the 3rd respondent has refused to issue the certificate stating that Maruti Swift Lxi is not fit to be sold to a handicapped person. The petitioner states in the petition that the car is delivered on 21.1.06. Much earlier, communications regarding handicapped condition of petitioner is intimated to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent had ample opportunigy to inform the petitioner about all the benefits which are available to a handicapped person before delivery of the vehicle. But they did not do so. So there is deficiency of service on the part of third respondent. If the car booked by the petitioner is not suitable for him, the third respondent had to inform much earlier, when 3rd respondent had received letter from petitioner for excise duty concession certificate. <br /> <br /> 7. Point No.2: On perusing Ext. P5 it can be seen that the petitioner is exempted from road tax duty. Ext. P4 also shows that in 9th column, the discount for vehicles designed for handicapped persons. These Exhibits affirm the case of the petitioner. <br /> <br /> 8. There is no evidence against the first and second respondents. There is no deficiency of service alleged against these two. He never approached Ist and 2nd respondents regarding the excise duty concession. So they are not liable to compensate the petitioner. Due to the deficiency on the part of the third respondent, the petitioner has suffered the loss. The quantum of loss is to be fixed. As per a statement filed by the petitioner he has lost Rs.85,147/- towards the excise duty, Rs.10,643/- towards the sales tax and Rs.4100/- towards insurance. As per their statement there is a loss of Rs.99,890/- in those heads only. <br /> <br /> 9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the third respondent is directed to pay Rs.99,890/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand eight hundred and ninety only) as compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition. No order as to cost and compensation. Time for payment one month. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of June 2008.<br />