BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.753/2008 against C.C.No.278/2004, District Forum, Cuddapah.

Between:

1. The Telco Senior Manager and Finance

2. The Regional Manager

1. B.Raja Reddy

      AkkayyapalliVillage, Ravindranagar

                                                                                                     2. M/s.Malik Cars,

   Hyderabad.

3. The Prasanthi Motors

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.D.Kodanda Rami Reddy-R1

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

AND

SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.

(Typed to the dictation of

***

        Thereafter he registered the vehicle under tax permit through RTO, Kadapa with registration No.AP 04 U 3807.     

Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 filed a counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and registered under taxi quota. Hyderabad     

Opposite party No.2 filed counter and admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant and if the owner of the vehicle used it as taxi, he was entitled to get refund of excise duty, subject to condition that the registration papers and taxi certificate be submitted within 90 days     

Opposite party No.4 was called absent and was set exparte.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 and B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant without interest and costs within 60 days.

Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 3 preferred this appeal.

           Both sides filed written arguments

           It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a vehicle (taxi) for the purpose of livelihood in the year 2002 vide invoice No.53 and the same was supplied to him on 15-6-2002 and he submits that the excise duty has to be refunded to him as per the terms and conditions of sale purchase agreement of opposite party No.1.     

It is the case of the appellants/opposite party Nos.1 and 3 that the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents within 90 days from the date of release of the vehicle by TATA Motors and that this time of 90 days starts from the date of invoice raised by the manufacturer but not from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the dealer.  

       To

         Hyderabad.

1.      R.C. 4 copies notarized

2.    certificate: original and 4 copies Xerox notarized

Thanking you,

With regards

From the aforementioned letter, Ex.A1, it is clear that the complainant had forwarded his documents through opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 dealer on 15-7-2002 which is one month after the delivery of the car and also within two months of Ex.B3 which is dated 27/5/2002 i.e. the date on which the dealer has taken the car from the manufacturer.       

                                                       JM