Kerala

StateCommission

A/12/134

MARUTHI SUZUKI INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.C.RAJAKRISHNAN - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.PRAKASH

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NOS.139/2012 & 134/2012

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 28/4/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.70/2011 dt 6/12/2011on the file of CDRF, Palakkad)

  

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPEAL NO.139/12

APPELLANT:

            M/s. Popular Vehicle and Service Ltd.,

Kuttukaran Centre, Mamngalam,

Kochi-682 025, Rep: by Ratheesh Thampy

S/o. Reghuvaran Thampy.

(By Advs: S. Reghukumar & George Cherian Karippaparambil)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  Sri. K.C. Rajakrishnan, S/o. Chandrasekharan,

 Kuruppath House, Alampallam, Kallepully P.O.,

 Palakkad District, Pin-678 005.

(By R1 Adv:    M. Kesavankutty Nair)  

2.  M/s. Maruthi Suzuki India Ltd., Palam Gurgaon Road,

Gurgoan, Hariyana State, PIN-122 015.

APPEAL NO.134/12

APPELLANT:

           

            Pankaj Narula (Chief General Manager Service)

            Maruti Zuzuki India Limited Reg: Office at Plot No.1,

Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070.   

(By  Adv:   G.S Prakash)  

 

RESPONDENTS:

1.  R.C. Rajakrishnan, S/o.   Chandrashekharan,

Kuruppath House, Allampallam, Kelleypully Post,

Palakkad-678 005.

(By R1 Adv:    M. Kesavankutty Nair)  

 

2.  M/s. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd.,

 Kuttukaran Centre, Mamangalam,

Ernakulam, Kochi-682 025.

(By Advs: S. Reghukumar & George Cherian Karippaparambil)                    

 

COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 28/4/2016

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Both these appeals arise out of the impugned order passed in C.C.No.70/11 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad.  The 1^st opposite party preferred Appeal No.134/2012 and 2^nd opposite party preferred Appeal No.139/2012.

          2.  The complainant purchased a Maruti Wagon R AX BS III with immobilizer BA IV CDG from 2^nd opposite party, who is the authorized Maruti dealer, on 16/3/2009 for Rs.4,33,338/-.  The entire amount was paid which includes excise duty.  The complainant being a disabled person craves for entitlement of excise duty concession applicable to the disabled person under condition No.II/Central Government Notification dated 01/03/2006.  The complainant is a disabled person having disability of 90% post traumatic which was certified by the Medical Board.  The complainant claimed for refund of excise duty of Rs.53,040/- paid to the opposite parties and issued lawyer’s notice on 22/9/2010 and 13/12/2010.  The opposite parties have not taken any steps to refund the excise duty.  The complaint is filed for refund of excise duty of Rs.53,040/- and Rs.50,000/- as damages.

          3.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party filed version and took the contention that the complaint is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint.  The vehicle was booked and delivered at Ernakulam whereas the complaint is filed at Palakad.  No cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Palakkad Consumer Forum.  The complainant either at the time of booking or at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle has not informed the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant is physically disabled person with 90% disability and he is entitled for refund of excise duty.  The Maruti Wagon R Car purchased by the complainant is not a vehicle designed for physically disabled persons.  The notices alleged to be sent was not addressed the 2^nd opposite party nor any copy was served to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled for excise duty rebate as the complainant had not informed the 2^nd opposite party regarding the disability at the time of booking or delivery.  Hence the complaint is only to be dismissed.  The objection filed by 1^st opposite party is that no cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of the Palakkad Consumer Forum as the booking and delivery took place at Ernakulam.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.  The 1^st opposite party has no privity of contract with the complainant.  The relationship between 1^st opposite party and its authorized dealer 2^nd opposite party, is based on principal to principal basis and governed by dealership agreement.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had never informed or submitted any document in respect of his alleged disability and purchased the vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party sold the car at normal price to the complainant as per the sale certificate.  The relevant documents for exemption could have been produced at the time of purchase of vehicle which was absent in the case of the complainant.  The complainant took delivery of the vehicle with full satisfaction.  The certificate is produced very late after the purchase of the vehicle.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of 1^st opposite party and the complaint is devoid of merit.

          4.  Both parties filed affidavit and on the part of the complainant Exbts: A1 to A16 were marked.

          5.  The argument put-forth by the counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party is that the respondent purchased the Wagon R vehicle from the 2^nd opposite party who is the authorized agent of the appellant.  The transaction between the dealer is complete as soon as the vehicle is delivered to the transporters of the dealer.  It is the dealer who issue the invoice and Sales  Certificate to the customers.  There is no privity of contract between this appellant and the respondent.  The only obligation of the appellant is under the terms of warranty for after sales certificate.  It is admitted that the Government of India issued a notification under the provisions of Central Sales Act for the supply of cars for physically handicapped customers at concessional rate of excise duty.  As per the provisions the handicapped person has to produce a Medical Certificate from the Medical Officer of a Government Hospital in a prescribed Performa.  When a booking of the car has been made the handicapped person is obliged to produce the certificate.  The car is to be delivered to the handicapped person which is to be specifically designed or fitted with special control devices and gadgets depending on the disability of the person concerned.  It is also specifically mentioned such car should not be sold for a period of 5 years.  It is mandatory to file an application to the Ministry of Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises, Government of India to issue certificate for concessional rate of excise duty of the vehicle he intends to purchase.  In this case the complainant failed to comply the formalities and filed the complaint for enrichment from the opposite parties.  The vehicle purchased by the complainant is not intended for handicapped persons.  The respondent took delivery of the vehicle by paying the entire amount.  The respondent sought refund of excise duty from the appellant by issuing an Advocate’s Notices on dated 22/9/2010 and 13/12/2010 along with relevant documents.  There is no request on the part of the respondent that he wanted to purchase the vehicle specially meant for handicapped person.  The purchase was done under general sale at normal rate is clear from the documents produced by the respondent.  The respondent ought to have obtained the concession certificate from the Ministry of Heavy Industry prior to the purchase to avail the excise duty concession.  The respondent cannot claim any refund of concession under excise law and the complaint is only to be dismissed.  The territorial jurisdiction is also pointed out as a ground for dismissal of the complaint.  In the instant case the complainant purchased the vehicle from 2^nd respondent on 16/3/2009 whereas the complaint is filed on 4/5/2011 after the expiry period of limitation. The certificate is for availing concession rate of excise duty which is to be produced at the time of purchase of the vehicle and not for the refund of excise duty after one year of the purchase of the vehicle.  It is also clear that the certificate is dated 2/2/2010.  Hence the 1^st respondent is not entitled for the concession in excise duty. 

6.  The counsel for the appellant in Appeal No.139/12 who is the dealer of Maruti Zuzuki India Ltd. submitted that the complainant  purchased Maruti Wagon R Car on 16/3/2009 for Rs.4,33,338/-.  Since the respondent is a dis-abled person with 90% dis-ability came up with a claim for refund of excise duty on concessional rate.  The 1^st contention raised is that Consumer Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction.  All the transactions were taken place at Ernakulam not in Palakkad.  Hence no cause of action arises at Palakkad and on that ground alone the complaint is to be dismissed.  The purchase of the vehicle was under general sale at normal rate.  The 1^st respondent has not produced any dis-ability certificate at the time of purchase of the vehicle.  No request for issuance of concessional rate or no application for the relaxation of excise duty submitted by the respondent.    It is true that Maruti Zuzuki would be providing vehicles for disabled person on specific requests made by the customers.  In the instant case the 1^st respondent purchased Maruti Wagon R Car and this car can be operated automatically and used by normal persons.  The complaint is filed for refund of Rs.53,014/- paid as excise duty.  In the absence of disability certificate or request at the time of purchase of the vehicle the claim of the respondent for excise duty concession cannot be entertained.  More over the disability certificate produced by the respondent is dated 2/2/2010 which shows that after the purchase of the vehicle the respondent obtained the disability certificate from the Medical Board.  At no point of time the respondent requested for getting refund of excise duty. Exbt: A6, Lawyer Notice dated 23/9/2010 and subsequent letter dated 13/12/2010 are much beyond the statutory period fixed for refund of excise duty amount.  The Forum Below ignored the fact that Exbt: A12 letter issued from 2^nd opposite party is after 9 months of the sale of the respondent’s vehicle.  More over the disability certificate itself is dated 5/9/2009        (Exbt: A8).  So also Exbt: A11 is dated 2/2/2010 issued by the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises.  Hence it is very clear that the complainant produced the certificate for excise duty exemption only very late after the purchase of the vehicle.  Hence the 1^st respondent is not entitled for excise duty concession being a belated application and the appellant is not liable to refund the excise duty.

          7.  Heard in detail and had gone through the records.  The crux of the case is that the respondent claimed refund of excise duty concession on the ground of 90% dis-ability.  The 1^st respondent purchased the Maruti Wagon R Car from the appellants on 16/3/2009.  At the time of purchase the respondent had not claimed the excise duty concession and had not produced the relevant documents like Medical Certificate and also certificate from the Ministry of heavy Industries and Public Enterprises.  On production of dis-ability certificate and the relevant documents as notified by the Government of India for the dis-ability person, a customer has to produce certain documents which is absent in the case of respondent.  It is mandatory to produce these documents at the time of purchase and avail the excise duty and not refund of the excise duty.  The certificate produced by the complainant is along with the Lawyer’s Notice dated 23/9/2010 and 13/12/2010.  Exbt: A11 is the certificate dated 2/2/2010 from the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. In order to get this certificate complainant had to produce the dis-ability certificate from the Medical Board of Government Hospital.  It is also relevant to point out that the Certificate produced from the District Hospital, Palakkad is dated 1/9/2009 whereas the complainant already purchased the Maruti Wagon R Vehicle as early as on 16/3/2009 for Rs.4,33,338/-.  Neither he claimed the excise duty exemption at the time of purchase nor he produced the relevant documents to claim the concessional rate.  Hence we are of the considered view that the 1^st respondent is not entitled for excise duty concession for the purchase of the Maruti Wagon R vehicle which was already purchased on 16/3/2009.

          In the result, both the appeals are allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

A. RADHA            :        MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS       :      MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER                                                                                       DISPUTES REDRESSAL

 COMMISSION, 

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NOS.139/2012

& 134/2012

COMMON JUDGMENT

DATED 28/4/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.