The present complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act' 1986 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed by Rakesh Kumar, the titled complainant praying for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties namely: i) the Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon (for short the OP1) and ii) the Pathankot Vehicleades Pvt. Ltd., Pathankot through its General Manager, (called 'the OP2') to pay Rs. 24,736/- being his entitled excise-rebate along with interest @ 24% PA w.e.f. 24.06.2013 till realization besides Rs.1,50,000/- as damages for having caused mental harassment, agony, inconvenience, insult and cost of litigation etc.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he had purchased the Maruti Swift Dzire Tourist Car RC # PB01-A-3835 from the OP2 Dealers for plying it as Taxi to earn his livelihood through self-employment and was thus entitled to the 4% Excise Rebate under the Govt. Policy. The complainant submitted his eligible claim to the OP2 along with the desired documents (as demanded by them) for filing it with the OP1 manufacturers who however rejected the same on 11.11.2013 on the ground that the address ID proof was different in the RC from that given on the TRC and did not tally with each other. The complainant has further stated that his correct address was duly submitted to the OP2 and the same was correctly incorporated in the Sales-invoice and the RC but somehow the OP2 had inadvertently filed the other different Address ID of his rented residence as available on his voter card. And, this negligence amounting to deficiency in service on the part of the OP2 Dealers had deprived the complainant of his entitled excise-rebate and thus prompted the present complaint with the desired relief duly prayed, hereinabove.       

3.       Upon notice (summons), the OP1 manufactures did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide the Forums’ orders dated 16.07.2014; however, their written reply was received on 18.07.2014 through post that has been duly taken on records vide orders dated 30.07.2014. In their written reply, the OP1   have amongst others, taken the prime preliminary objection that the present complaint was not maintainable since the complainant was not a consumer under the Act for the gracious service being provided by them in assisting him to claim the excise-rebate that was the prerogative of the designated excise-commissioner. On merits, it has been stated that the claim as received from the OP2 was ‘deficient’ since the addresses provided in the RC and the TRC were different and thus the claim as such was submitted as ‘deficient’ with the excise authorities and its subsequent rejection was duly advised to the complainant and the OP2 who provided the correct address ID with a delay of 99 days and in the meantime the claim became time-barred and was thus, presently not payable. The OP2 dealers appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply taking the preliminary objections of the ‘absence’ of cause of action and set-out of any deficiency in service etc. On merits, it has been pleaded that the claim as received from the complainant was duly forwarded to the OP2 and the out-coming rejection duly advised to him and thus there being no deficiency on their part, the present complaint need be dismissed with special costs.

4.       Both the parties produced their affidavits and documents in evidence to support their pleadings and their counsels also put forth their arguments to prove their respective assertions/ claims. We have examined and duly evaluated all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also considered and perused the essence of the heard/written arguments while adjudicating the present complaint.

5.       The counsel for the complainant has produced the documents exhibited as: Ex.C1 being his affidavit duly deposing the pleadings averred in the complaint along with the other documents exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed his evidence. In reciprocation, the OP2 produced the affidavit Ex.OP1 of its General Manager YPS Minhas duly deposing the averments/ evidence etc as put forth; the Ex.OP2 being the copy of the rejection letter dated 11.11.2013 and the Ex.OP3 the copy of the legal notice dated 28.04.2014 and closed the evidence.

6.       We find that the Sales Receipts here are inclusive of the collateral services such as providing/arranging Registration, Insurance, Excise-rebate, CSD-purchase etc and thus being the paid-for ones (and not free/gracious etc) duly fall under the definition of ‘service’ under the Act. It was for the OP2 dealer/distributor to have forwarded the complainant’s documents in the requisite acceptable-order for claiming the entitled excise-rebate (concession etc) and was thus responsible for the same. However, it is observed that the OP2 here has simply acted as the mute ‘post-office’ and has simply forwarded the claim documents on ‘as received' basis without scrutinizing these for correctness and propriety etc whereas the correct address ID proof etc was very much (already) available with them and they also caused the avoidable delay of 99 days in submission of the claim documents to their principals OP1 who in turn admittedly filed the ‘deficient’ claim with the excise authorities. The OP service providers need to have been more conscious and considerate towards their moral as well as statutory duty and social obligations towards the consumer rights and especially of a self-employed customer with modest means and propagating his livelihood through self employment as a Taxi-Driver. Somehow, we find the OPs here as callous, wanting and deficient in service as per the documentary and other cogent evidence available on records and as discussed. We are strengthened in our above proposition by virtue of the observations as put forth in a plethora of pronounced judgments on consumer rights by the honorable superior courts and even (a plain reading of) the Statement of ‘objects and reasons’ preceding the Act supports the same.

7.       In the light of the all above, we hold the OP2 Dealers as guilty of deficiency in service for having negligently forwarded the incorrect-address of the complainant to the OP1 manufacturers (for claiming the eligible excise-rebate) and thus ORDER them to pay Rs.24,736/- (the admittedly entitled amount of the eligible excise-rebate) to the complainant besides Rs.3,000/- as compensation for having inflicted upon him the un-necessary harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the present litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of filing of the present compliant till actually paid.

8.       Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

    (Naveen Puri)                                             

                                      President

ANNOUNCED:                 (G.B.S.Bhullar)                   (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 09, 2015.                          Member                             Member