DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 6th Day of December 2011 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 17/05/2011 (C.C.No.70/2011) K.C.Rajakrishnan, S/o.Chandrasekharan Kuruppath House, Alampallam, Kallepully Post, Palakkad – 678 005. (Adv.T.S.Sivaramkrishnan) - Complainant V/s 1.Pankaj Narula, Chief General Manager (Service) M/s.Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon, Pin – 122 015 Haryana State 2.The Person in charge M/s.Popular Vehicles and Service Ltd. (Authorised Maruti Dealer) Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam, Ernakulam Kochi – 682 025. - Opposite parties (By Adv.George Charian Karippaparambil) O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT Complaint in brief:- Complainant is a disabled person having 90% disability. Complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon RAXBS III with immobilizer from 2nd opposite party vide invoice No.VSLO8008258 dated 16/3/2009 for an amount of Rs.4,33,338/-. The said amount includes the excise duty payable which amounts to Rs.53,040/-. Complainant being a disabled person is entitled for excise duty concession as per condition No.11 of Central Govt. Notification No.6/2006 Central Excise dated 1/3/2006. Complainant sought for refund of Excise Duty through lawyer notice dated 22/9/2010 and 13/12/2010. So far opposite parties has not refunded the amount. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for refund of the amount along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Contention of 1st opposite party 1st opposite party has filed a version by post at a belated stage. 1st opposite party contented that the Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further the relationship between the 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party is based on principal to principal basis and 1st opposite party is not responsible for the acts and omission of 2nd opposite party. Further the complainant has purchased the vehicle from 2nd opposite party under general sale at normal rate. 1st opposite party has not received any medical certificate nor any request for issuance of manufacturer certificate from the Excise Department. According to 1st opposite party there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party. Contention of 2nd opposite party 1st opposite party was set exparte. As per the contention of 2nd opposite party, Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further complainant has not intimated 2nd opposite party about the physical disability either at the time of booking the car or at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle. Again 1st opposite party is not manufacturing any vehicle for physically disabled person and further Maruti Wagon R car model No.AXBSIII is not a vehicle designed for the physically disabled person. 2nd opposite party has not received any lawyer notice dated 22/9/2010 and 13/12/2010 from the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Now the issues that arise for consideration are 1) Whether Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ? 2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? 3) If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ? The evidence led by the complainant consists of the chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A16 documents. 1st opposite party filed chief affidavit. No documentary evidence on the part of 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party has not filed any chief affidavit. Issue No.1 Both opposite parties has raised a contention that the Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Forum has also raised doubt as to this aspect and hence the complaint was posted for hearing on admission when it was filed. After a detail hearing complaint was admitted. Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 read as follows: (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction (a) The opposite party or each of the opposite parties where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain or, (b) Any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside or carry on business or have a branch office or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution or (c) The cause of action, wholly or in part arises. It is submitted by the complainant that he being a disabled person has placed the order for the purchase of the vehicle from his residence at Palakkad. Since the part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Forum, we find that Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Issue No. 2 & 3 The specific case of the complainant is that opposite parties failed to refund excise duty paid by him along with the price of the vehicle. He being a disabled person is entitled for the same. 1st opposite party on the other hand contented that the said fact of disability was not informed by the complainant either at the time of booking or at the time of delivery of the vehicle. Further 2nd opposite party is not manufacturing any vehicle for the physically disabled and the Maruti Wagon R car model No.AXBSIII is not a vehicle designed for the physically disabled. Heard both parties and has gone through the entire evidence on record. Complainant is a disabled person with 90% disability at the time of booking the vehicle itself is born out by Ext.A1 which is the medical examination report by the Medical Board. In 2nd page of Ext.A1, it is specifically stated that the complainant is capable of driving a hand-driven light motor vehicle even though he is a locomotor disabled person. Fact of the purchase of the vehicle is not disputed. In Ext.A12 which is the certificate dated 8/12/09 issued by 1st opposite party, it is stated that Wagon R AX model vehicle suits the disability of the complainant and he is unlikely to have any problem in driving the said vehicle. Hence it is clear that the necessary modifications are made to suit the needs of the complainant. Ext.A13 copy of RC book clearly shows that the complainant is exempted from payment of road tax. So it is abundantly clear that the Motor Vehicle Department has got the knowledge of the disability of the complainant. Ext.A1 which is the copy of the Form for refund of the excise duty, it is specifically stated the documents to be submitted in support of the claim. They are 1. Copy of invoice regarding purchase of vehicle 2. Certificate from Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Govt. of India. 3. Copy of Disability Certificate from Medical Board, District Hospital, Palakkad. Complainant has produced all the documents. The said documents along with the application has sent to 2nd opposite party is revealed by Ext.A1 & A6 lawyer notice. Both parties even though had the knowledge of the said facts, had not taken any steps to resolve the matter. Opposite parties has not raised any doubt as to the amount of refund of excise duty. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint allowed and we order the following: - We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.53,040/- being the excise duty paid.
- We also direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization. Pronounced in the open court on this the 6th day of December 2011 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Application for refund of Excise Duty Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Election ID card of complainant Ext.A3 – Photocopy of Medical Examination Report Ext.A4 – Photocopy of Tax receipt received from 2nd opposite party Ext.A5 – Photocopy of ID card of the complainant for persons with disabilities Ext.A6 – Photocopy of Lawyer notice dtd.23/9/10 sent to 1st opposite party by the complainant Ext.A7 – Photocopy Lawyer notice dtd.13/12/10 sent to 1st opposite party by the complainant Ext.A8 – Photocopy of Orthopaedically disabled person certificate issued in the complainant Ext.A9 – Preliminary information sheet issued by Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. Chennai. Ext.A10 – Job card Retail Cash memo received from Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. Palakkad Ext.A11 – Letter from Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises alongwith certificate issued to complainant to avail excise duty concession Ext.A12 – Letter given by 2nd opposite party dated 8/12/09 to the complainant Ext.A13 – Photocopy of Driving Licence of the complainant Ext.A14 – Photocopy of vehicle tax receipt Ext.A15 –Insurance policy of the vehicle in the name of complainant Ext.A16 – Photocopy of RC book of the vehicle Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties Nil Cost Allowed Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings. | 
