APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON:  29^th   JUNE  2016

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          The impugned order dated 16.07.2009, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 567/2007, Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Manish Barot & Anr., has been challenged by way of this Revision Petition, filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The State Commission, vide the said order, upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 558/2006, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 22,995/- as refund of excise duty @ 20% of the sale value of the vehicle but reduced the rate of interest from 9% as allowed by the District  Forum, to 6% p.a. 

2.      The facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased a Maruti Omni vehicle on 22.03.1991 from the respondent no. 2 dealer, M/s. Alfa Automobiles for running the same as a commercial taxi, for which a permit was issued to him on 18.04.1991.  The registration number of the vehicle was RJ24T 9954.  As stated, the complainant was entitled for rebate of 20% in excise duty on submission of relevant documents as per notification no. 162/86/A dated 01.03.1986, issued by the Government of India.  The complainant is stated to have given the necessary documents to the dealer Alfa Automobiles, claiming the refund of the excise duty and these documents are stated to have been sent by the dealer to the petitioner Maruti Udyog Ltd., vide their letter dated 22.04.1991.  However, the case of the petitioner is that they received the said documents on 12.07.1991 and on the same day, they sent the refund case to the excise authorities.  The claim was not allowed, however, taking the plea that such refund was to be applied for within three months of the date of invoice of the vehicle.  The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had indulged in deficiency in service towards him by not sending the said documents in time for claiming the refund.  On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is that they sent the documents with the excise department immediately on receipt of the same.  A consumer complaint no. 558/2006 was, therefore, filed by the complainant against the petitioner manufacturer and the dealer of the vehicle, alleging deficiency in service towards them.  The said complaint was allowed by the District Forum, vide order dated 12.02.2007, vide which, the petitioner was ordered to refund the 20% of the sale value as excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,995/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from October, 1993 onwards.  Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

3.      It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant, as they had sent the documents received from the dealer immediately to the excise authorities for refund.  The necessary refund was to be given by the excise authorities only and hence, they could not be saddled with the claim made by the complainant as done by the consumer fora below.  The learned counsel further stated that the present consumer complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, because the said complaint was filed in June, 1994, whereas the documents were sent by them to the excise authorities on 12.07.1991.  The learned counsel also stated that vide letter dated 06.01.1992, they had written to the complainant that his case for refund of excise duty had been submitted to the excise department on 12.07.1991.  The consumer complaint should, therefore, be dismissed, being barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Act and also on merits, because the petitioners were not liable to refund the amount in question. 

4.      Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1/complainant stated that after the purchase of the said vehicle, they had handed over the necessary documents to the dealer and as per letter dated 22.04.1991, the dealer had sent five copies of all documents to the petitioner for the purpose of refund.  The learned counsel further stated that there had been delay on the part of the petitioner in sending the claim to the Excise Department.  Further, there had not been any delay on their part in filing the consumer complaint in question, because the petitioner never informed them that the refund had not been allowed by the Excise Authorities.  They sent a legal notice to the petitioner dated 25.09.1993, regarding non receipt of the excise duty refund.  In response to the legal notice, the petitioner sent reply on 12.10.1993, from which the complainant came to know for the first time that their claim had been rejected as time barred.  The learned counsel stated that the complaint, having been filed in June, 1994, was very much within limitation, as they came to know about the rejection of the claim from the letter dated 12.10.1993 only.  The learned counsel has drawn attention to the orders passed by this Commission in Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise vs. Rajesh Bhatti & Ors., III (2002) CPJ 30 (NC), saying that the deficiency in service was proved, if the refund had not been allowed on the excise duty. 

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to the order of this Commission in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. S. N. Sharma, Revision Petition No. 304/2006, decided on 27.04.2010 and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. vs.  National Insurance Co. & Anr., CPJ 3 (2009) 75, saying that the complaint deserved to be dismissed, as it had been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.      The basic point that requires consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner in the matter of claim of refund of excess excise duty to the complainant.  Admittedly, the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant on 22.03.1991.  It is also not denied that the requisite number of copies of the documents were forwarded by the dealer of the vehicle to the petitioner vide their letter dated 22.04.1991.  There is nothing on record to prove that the said documents were received by the petitioner as late as on 12.07.1991.  In the normal course of delivery of such documents, they should have been received by the petitioner within 3-4 days of dispatch of the same by the dealer, Alfa Automobiles.  It is mentioned in the letter dated 22.04.1991, sent by the dealer to the petitioner that the documents were sent by the registered A.D.  In case the documents were delivered late to the petitioner, they could have filed evidence from the postal authorities, instead of making contention that such documents were received by them on 12.07.1991 only.  In the absence of any reasonable explanation filed by the petitioner to the contrary, the natural presumption is that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in sending the claim for refund to the excise authorities and the claim became time barred in the meantime.  The petitioners are, therefore, clearly guilty of deficiency in service towards the complainant, as the complainant was denied the refund of the claim by the Excise Department on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.  There is, therefore, no lacuna in the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below that the petitioners are entitled to refund the concerned amount to the complainant for their deficiency in service. 

8.      In so far as the complaint being filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 24A of the Act is concerned, it is a settled legal proposition that the Consumer Complaints are to be made within two years of the cause of action before the competent fora.  In the present case, however, there is nothing on record to show whether the complainants were ever informed about the rejection of their claim by the Excise Authorities.  The version given by them that they came to know about the rejection of their claim as barred by limitation from the reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner on 12.10.1993 has to be presumed to be true, in the absence of anything else to the contrary that the complainants were aware about the rejection of their claim.  It may further be observed that in response to notice dated 25.09.1993, sent by the complainant to the petitioner, they were informed by the petitioner that the documents of the refund case had been submitted to the Excise Department on 12.07.1991.  A letter has also been sent by the petitioner on 06.01.1992 stating therein that the petitioner will inform the complainant as soon as the refund case is cleared by the excise department.  However, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever informed the complainant about the rejection of claim except in their reply to the legal notice sent by them.  In case, the cause of action is taken to have arisen on 12.10.1993, the complaint filed in June, 1994 is within the period of limitation, as prescribed under the Act.

9.      Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or error of jurisdiction in the orders passed by the Consumer fora below, which may merit any interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.  The Revision Petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is upheld, with no order as to costs.