BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.492 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          05.08.2014

                                                 Date of Decision:            23.07.2015

Pawan Kumar son of Late Hans Raj, resident of village Sukhrampur Tapprian, District Roopnagar (Punjab).

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. through its Managing Director, Head Office: 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

2.     Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., through its Managing Director, Regd. Office Palam, Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon (Haryana).

3.     Tricity Auto through its Managing Director, Zirakpur- Patiala Highway, Near AKM Resort, Zirakpur, Mohali (Punjab).

………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Vishal Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                OP Nos.1 and 2 exparte.

Shri Sukaam Gupta, counsel for OP No.3.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    refund him Rs.20,000/- with Rs.5000/- as interest @ 24% per annum charged as special excise charges.

(b)    pay him Rs.10,000/- each for mental tension, harassment etc., misrepresentation and litigation expenses.

                The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Maruti Swift Dezire car from OP No.3 on 26.12.2013 and got it registered with Transport Authority, Mohali vide registration No.PB-01-A-1201 as taxi vehicle.  As per the policy issued by the Govt. vide notification No.6 of 2002 any vehicle which has been subsequently registered as a taxi, the excise duty charged on it is refunded to the manufacturer who then refund the same to the purchaser of the vehicle.  The complainant after registration of the vehicle as taxi, submitted the claim to OP No.3 for refund of the Special Excise Charged on the vehicle on 04.03.2014 within the stipulated period of three months.  However, the office of the OPs put forth the objection that the month and year of manufacturer of the car was October, 2013 and the claim has been submitted on 04.03.2014 and the complainant is not entitled for the refund of Special Excise Charged.  The complainant informed the OPs that he has taken the delivery of the vehicle on 26.12.2013 and thus his claim is within three months.  The complainant even sent a legal notice dated 25.03.2014 but till date the claim has not been settled by the OPs. Non settlement of the claim of the complainant is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

2.             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs.  None appeared on behalf of OP Nos.1 and 2 but reply was received on their behalf through post which was taken on record. They have pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act as he has purchased the vehicle for running as a taxi.  The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP Nos.1 and 2 and the complainant has impleaded OP Nos.1 and 2 with an ulterior motive.  The OP No.2 invoiced/cleared the vehicle on 30.10.2013 in favour of OP No.3. The complainant bought the vehicle and got it registered as taxi on 28.02.2014 after expiry of stipulated period of three months. The OPs received the post registration documents on 06.03.2014 which were found deficient as the vehicle was not registered within the stipulated period of three months. No amount of excise duty or rebate is lying with the OPs and thus they are not liable to refund any amount to the complainant. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OP Nos.1 and 2 have sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.3 has pleaded that the vehicle was sold by it to the complainant on 26.12.2013 which was registered as taxi on 28.02.2014. The complainant submitted the documents of registration on 04.03.2014 and OP No.3 immediately forwarded the same to OP No.2 for taking further action. The refund of the claim is to be made by OP Nos.1 and 2 and OP No.3 has no role in it.  OP No.3 too has sought dismissal of the complaint against it.

4.             To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.

5.             To rebut the allegations of the complainant, OP No.3 tendered the affidavit of Dhruv Garg, its CEO Ex.OP-3/1 and documents Ex.OP-3/2 to OP-3/4.

6.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file and written arguments filed by the complainant and OP No.3.

7.             The main grievance of the complainant in the present case is that he has purchased the vehicle in question from the OP No.3 vide invoice dated 26.12.2013 and the vehicle in question was registered as a taxi as per the registration certificate Ex.C-3 issued by the competent authority. As per Govt. notification any vehicle which is registered as a taxi, the excise duty paid by the manufacturer is refunded by the State to the manufacturer and the benefit of the same is to be passed on the ultimate user i.e. purchaser of the vehicle. Therefore, the complainant has submitted his claim documents for reimbursement of the excise duty paid by him to the tune of Rs.20,000/- at the time of purchase of the vehicle. The claim documents have been submitted by the complainant to OP No.3 on 04.03.2014 and the receipt of the same has been duly acknowledged by OP No.3 vide document Ex.OP-3/4.  OP No.3 has also filled up the form for refund of excise duty to the complainant as is evident from Ex.OP-3/4 which bears the signatures of OP No.3 against the column signature and seal of the dealer. Thus, it is admitted between the parties that the requisite documents for refund of excise duty have been submitted and received by OP No.3. Despite the fact that the complainant has completed his part of the duty by submitting the documents in time, the OPs have failed to refund the excise duty of Rs.20,000/- which he is entitled to as  per policy of the Govt. Non refund and withholding of the amount due to the complainant is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged by the complainant.  

8.             Thus the issue for determination in the present complaint is whether the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice by withholding the amount of Rs.20,000/- due to the complainant and further rendered deficient after sale service to the complainant by not refunding the due amount.

9.             To find the answers it will be appropriate to appreciate the broad guidelines on refund as Ex.C-5 to prove the entitlement of the complainant to seek refund of the excise duty paid by him. As per the policy guidelines, a vehicle which is registered as a taxi is exempted from payment of special excise duty. The vehicle of the complainant is admittedly having been registered as a taxi as per registration certificate Ex.C-1 and admittedly OP No.3 has charged the excise duty of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant as per invoice dated 26.12.2013. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to seek refund of the amount paid as excise duty.

10.           In order to get refund, the complainant submitted the claim documents on 04.03.2014 which is duly acknowledged by OP No.3 vide Ex.OP-3/4.  As per OP No.1 and 2 in their reply in Para No.3 they have received the documents from OP No.3 after expiry of three months period from the date of sale of vehicle by OP No.1 and 2 to OP No.3 and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to refund of the excise duty. As per OP Nos.1 and 2 they have sold the vehicle to OP No.3 on 30.10.2013 and the benefit of refund of excise duty was available to the end purchaser within three months of sale. As per documents submitted to OP No.1 and 2 by OP No.3 the vehicle in question was sold by OP No.3 to the complainant on 26.12.2013 and the complainant got the vehicle registered as taxi on 28.02.2014. The documents for claim post registration have been received by OP No.1 and 2 on 06.03.2014 and upon scrutiny it was found that the vehicle was not registered within the stipulated period of three months from the date of sale by OP Nos.1 and 2 to OP No.3 and, therefore, the claim document having been received late, no claim is maintainable.

11.           The perusal of Ex.C-5 i.e. broad guidelines on refund clearly show that the manufacturer of the goods has to pay 24% excise duty and is eligible for refund of 8% excise duty after registration of vehicle under the category of ambulance or taxi. There is no time frame mentioned in the said guidelines for seeking refund after registration of vehicle. The plea of OP Nos.1 and 2 that the documents for refund were received by them after expiry of three months from the date of sale of the vehicle to OP No.3 is without any substance and is contrary to the guidelines on refund Ex.C-5.  Therefore, once OP No.3 has accepted the documents of refund from the complainant and forwarded the same to OP Nos.1 and 2 as has been admitted by OP Nos.1 and 2, OP Nos.1 and 2 do not have any legal reasons to decline the claim of the complainant. Therefore, non refund of the claimed amount of special excise duty of Rs.20,000/- by OP Nos.1 and 2 and withholding the same till date is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.

12.           The complainant is a consumer and OP No.3 is the seller and service provider of after sale service, and has, therefore, rightly proved his complaint against OP Nos. 1 and 2 and for the acts of omission and commission of indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by OP Nos.1 and 2 the complainant has suffered financial loss as he has been deprived of the use and benefit of his valuable property which has further caused mental agony to him. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed against OP Nos.1 and 2 and the complainant deserves to be compensated. Hence the complaint against OP Nos.1 and 2 is allowed. 

13.           So far OP No.3 is concerned, it has shown on record its discharge of obligation of forwarding the claim of the complainant to OP Nos.1 and 2 who have admitted having received the same, therefore, we do not find anything amiss on the part of OP No.3. Thus, complaint against OP No.3 deserves to be dismissed. Hence complaint against it is dismissed.

14.           Hence the complaint is allowed against OP Nos.1 and 2 with the following directions:

(a)    to refund to the complainant Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receipt of document i.e. 06.03.2014 till realisation.

(b)    to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental tension, harassment  and costs of litigation.

                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

July 23, 2015.     

                        (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member