Delhi

New Delhi

CC/373/2011

Praveen Kumar Mittal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/373/11                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Praveen Kumar Mittal,

S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Mittal,

R/o 5490-92, Shora Kothi,

Pahar Ganj, Delhi-55

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Ms. Competent Auto Mobiles Co. Ltd.,

Competent House, F-14,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Maruti Suzuki (India ) Ltd.,

Gurgaon, Haryana

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

The short complaint of deficiency alleged on the part of the Ops by the complainant is in relation to his no claiming of excise duty on a Maruti Dzire Car no. DL14B9877 purchased from dealer OP1, made & manufactured by OP2. The car was purchased to recess as a Taxi, and part of Exercise duty paid to the manufacturing is refunded in terms of policy of Ministry of Finance.

The facts show that car was purchased on 23.04.10. The rules for refund brought on record by OP2, state that the vehicle is to be registered within 3 months of purchase as a commercial vehicle as Taxi, and up to 6 months from date of payment of Exercise duty at gate of manufacture, the refund is to be sought. In this case, the vehicle was duly registered as Taxi on 05.05.10. However, the complainant informed OP2, manufacturer through OP1 dealer for refund request on 1612.10 i.e. after 8 months of purchase; where after on 01.02.11 an application for condonation of delay was sent. The application for condonation of delay mentioned the reason for delay as illness of complainant.

The OP2 founded the documents for seeking refund of exercise duty to Govt. of India. However, the Govt. Department rejected the request as time barred, which was informed to complainant.

The complainant filed this complaint but is not able to rebut the facts stated by OP2, about delay of 8 months in applying to OP2 for refund. In these circumstances, we find no deficiency on the part of OP1 or OP2, and the complaint is dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 19.10.2015.

 

                   

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER