Haryana

StateCommission

A/568/2016

MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAMBIR - Opp.Party(s)

MANISH JAIN

28 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      568 of 2016

Date of Institution:      24.06.2016

Date of Decision :       28.09.2017

 

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder Mumbai-400039 (India) through Mr. A. Vishwanath, Vice President.

 

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

Versus

 

1.      Rambir, Resident of Village Kalani, Tehsil Dadri, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Dewan Fourwheels, In front of Panchayat Bhawan, Narnaul, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, through Proprietor.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.1

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                  

 

Present:               Shri Mayur Kanwar, Advocate for appellant.

                             Respondents No.1 and 2 ex parte

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (for short ‘the District Forum’).    

2.                Rambir-complainant (respondent No.1 herein) purchased a vehicle Mahindra Xylo bearing registration No.HR-61A-4190 from Sri Mohan Motors, Nizampur Road, Narnaul, Haryana, authorised dealer of the manufacturer-Mahindra & Mahindra Limited – Opposite Party No.2, for a consideration of Rs.6,82,000/- on September 01^st, 2010. The complainant purchased the above mentioned vehicle for commercial purposes to use as a taxi to get refund of an amount of Rs.65,000/-. As per terms and conditions of Government Policy, the complainant was told that he shall have right for refund of an amount of Rs.65,000/- if he used the above mentioned vehicle for commercial purposes. The complainant got registered the above mentioned vehicle under Taxi Permit and also paid insurance premium for commercial vehicle. The complainant submitted his letter of request along with necessary documents with the opposite party No.1 on October 16^th, 2010 for refund of Excise Duty amount mentioned above. The complainant also sent his complaint by registered post to the opposite party No.2 – manufacturer of the vehicle also.  Despite several requests and service of legal notice, the opposite parties did not refund the amount of Rs.65,000/- as Excise Duty to the complainant.

3.                The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act, 1986) with a prayer that the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant as refund of Excise Duty with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- on account of un-necessary harassment and mental agony. 

4.                During pendency of the complaint, an application was filed by the complainant before the District Froum with a prayer to delete the name of Sri Mohan Motors from the array of opposite parties and to implead Dewan Fourwheels as opposite party No.1, in place of Sri Mohan Motors. The application was allowed and Dewan Fourwheels, in front of Panchayat Bhawan, Narnaul, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, was allowed to be impleaded as opposite party No.1. Later on request of the opposite party No.1-Dewan Fourwheels to delete its name from the array of the opposite parties was declined by the learned District Forum. In this way, in this case, the opposite party No.1 has not filed written version.

5.                Mahindra & Mahindra Limited – Opposite Party No.2, manufacturer of the car vehicle in its written version has taken plea that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; that the complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as provided under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, 1986 and it is not a case of deficiency in service. It is pleaded that the complainant is not entitled for refund of an amount of Rs.65,000/- from the opposite parties as the complainant did not approach the opposite parties within time. The complainant was required to lodge his claim with the Central Excise Department within a period of 180 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass (EGP) and the complainant was also required to get the vehicle registered with the concerned RTO within a period of 90 days from the date of clearance from the factory.  The complainant did not fulfill the terms and conditions to seek refund of the amount. In this way, the complainant is not entitled to receive any amount as claimed in the complaint. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

6.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated May 18^th, 2016, the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed directing the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.65,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint and to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses, to the complainant.

7.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-opposite party No.2 has filed the present appeal bearing No.568 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant.

8.                During proceedings of this appeal, Shri M.S. Randhawa, Advocate appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 on October 27^th, 2016 but thereafter the opposite party No.2 stopped appearing in the proceedings of this appeal from March 01^st, 2017 onwards. On September 26^th, 2017, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1/complainant despite service. Respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated September 26^th, 2017.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

10.              Admittedly, vehicle Mahindra Xylo bearing registration No.HR-61A-4190 was purchased by the complainant for a consideration of Rs.6,82,000/- on September 01^st, 2010 from a sub-dealer of Sri Mohan Motors, Nizampur Road, Narnaul. It is an admitted fact that as per government policy, the complainant was entitled for refund of an amount of Rs.65,000/-, as excise duty charged from him at the time of purchasing the vehicle, if the complainant is able to prove that he purchased the vehicle for commercial purposes, after getting the same registered with the registration authority as a taxi subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the government policy.

11.              It is evident from the bill, Annexure R-2 that delivery of the above mentioned vehicle was taken by Sri Mohan Motors from the factory premises of the manufacturer on April 22^nd, 2010. It is evident from the document Annexure R-3 that Excise Gate Pass of this vehicle was dated April 22^nd, 2010. The date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant was September 01^st, 2010 and date of registration of the vehicle with the Regional Transport Authority as a taxi is September 16^th, 2010. As per Excise Refund Provision, as mentioned in letter Annexure R-1, for lodging ‘Taxi Refund Claim’ the claimant is required to lodge claim with Central Excise Department within a period of 180 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass.  Apart from it, the complainant is required to get the vehicle registered with the concerned Regional Transport Officer within a period of 90 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass. The situation in this case is quite clear. The complainant did not lodge claim with the Central Excise Department or with the opposite party within 180 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass i.e. April 22^nd, 2010 as it is admitted fact that the claim was lodged for refund first time on October 16^th, 2010, after more than a period of 180 days from the date of Gate Pass. Similarly, the vehicle was got registered as a taxi in the office of RTO on September 16^th, 2010, after more than a period of 90 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass, which is dated April 22^nd, 2010.  In this way, situation is quite clear. The complainant could not fulfill the required terms and conditions for refund of an amount of Rs.65,000/- as Excise Duty rebate.

12.              Resultantly, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to receive the amount of Rs.65,000/-. The learned District Forum has committed an error while passing the impugned order. It appears that this fact escaped from the notice of the learned District Forum that neither claim was lodged within the prescribed period nor the vehicle was got registered as Taxi within the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of Excise Gate Pass. In view of this, the impugned order dated May 18^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is held to be illegal and invalid and the same deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party No.2 is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside. Consequently, complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

13.              The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced: 28.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL