Orissa

Rayagada

CC/346/2016

Smt. Namita Pujari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sales Manager, M/s Parqamount Automotive Pvt. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

22 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 346 / 2016.                                       Date.  22      .9. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, .                                                                     Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                                                             Member

 

Smt.  Namita Pujari,   W/O: Sri Binod  Pujari, At/Po: Tikiri, Dist: Rayagada,State:  Odisha.              Cell No. 94370- 74452.                                                                                                                                                                                                 …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The  Sales  Manager-Cum-In charge, M/S. Paramount Automotive Pvt. Ltd., At:J.K.Pur Road, Near Debadola, Dist: Rayagada(Odisha).

2. The   Sales  Manager-Cum-In charge, M/S. Paramount Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Authorised  main Dealer for Mahindra and Mahindra vehicles,  At: Bye pass  Road,  Po: Jeypore,  Dist: Koraput, (Odisha).      

3.The  Sales Executive, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 3^rd. floor, Marketing office,  Mahendra Towers, Akruti Road, Kandivalli East Mumbai- 400 101.                    .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self..

For the O.P No1 & 2 :- Sri  K.N.Samantaray and associates, Jeypore.

For the O.P. No.3:- Sri S.C.Pradhan & Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate,Rayagada.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment  5% of  the total purchase price of the Bolero SLX vehicle  towards Rebate on excise duty. The   brief facts of the case are summarized here under.

        That the complainant is a bonafied purchaser of a Bolero SLX and registered owner of the vehicle bearing  Regd. No. OD-18A-7893 and the R.C. book stands recorded in  her name with was purchased from the O.Ps  by paying  a sum of Rs.7,50,111/- on Dt. 21.10.2013. At the time of purchase there was a scheme of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., AT:Jepore and Rayagada  that  tax refunds money scheme to the bonafied  purchasers for attraction of the customer in that period.  The O.Ps No.1 & 2 also assured  orally to  the complainant that there is a tax refunds scheme for the purchaser of 5% of total cost and  they said that it will come from head office then after they will return the same to the  complainant. But after repeatedly approaching to the  O.Ps since more than  two years they  have not complied the same till now and remain  silent  by not giving proper service to the complainant. Finally the complainant approached before this forum and filed a complaint prays direct the  O.Ps to pay the above said tax refund money @ 5% of the total price of the vehicle to the complainant  and such other relief  as the  forum deems fit and   proper for the best interest of justice.

        On being noticed the O.Ps have appeared through their learned counsels and filed  written version inter  alia  denying their petition allegations   on all its material particulars.  The O.Ps No.1 & 2  have submitted that the complainant had purchased one Bolero  SLX  through  the  O.P. No.1 & 2   under finance scheme  on payment of total cost . The O.Ps No.1 & 2 further contended that the had  never given  any assurance regarding refund of  @ 5% of tax  money over the rate of  purchase and no documents  had received towards refund  of 5% of tax money from the complainant at  any time during the sale  transactions of the vehicle by the O.P. No.1 & 2.   The O.P 1 & 2 again contended that  the question of refund of tax money is the matter between the company and Transport department, Govt. of Odisha for this  the O.P. 1 & 2 have  nothing to do anything  in this matter therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. 1 & 2 and claim  of refund of 5% tax money and  compensation, cost of litigation are not justified and also baselss and for that the complaint petition is required to be dismissed outright.

        The O.P. No.3 in their written version contended that  he had dnot advertised  any tax deduction scheme for the customers.  As per the complainant’s allegation  the O.Ps 1 & 2 convinced the complainant regarding  a tax refund  benefit but till date they  have not complied with the same for which this case has been filed and this  O.P. has no knowledge of any such scheme which it  has announced for the customers of its vehicles and the allegations   are  fully denied and the  complainant must be put to strict proof thereof.   The complainant has alleged that he has  been assured  orally by the O.P. 1 & 2  to  refund  5%  tax  of  the cost value but it has not been complied, which is beyond  the knowledge of the O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 submits that the vehicle was  sold to the O.P. No.2(authorized dealer) and then sell it to its own customer and it is their duty to supply the proper documents to area office for forwarding to tax refunding authority for refunding of tax for taxi  purpose vehicle.  However, such a refund can only be granted if the  relevant documents are provided to the answering O.P. who will then need to submit  to the concerned tax authorities.  The relevant documents  pertaining to  tax refund for taxi vehicles were never submitted to the O.P. No.3 and hence no such statutory refund can  possibly be granted . The complainant filed this case for redressal of his grievance is not maintainable against the O.P. No.3 because  there  are  some  guidelines   for tax refund as per the  notification  of the Govt.  of India  in the Ministry of Finance.  As per the Govt.  guidelines the tax refunding papers have not been submitted within six months, therefore the O.P. No.3 have no role to play in this matter   and is undone for lack  of relevant papers and in view  of the above, the complainant is not entitled for any claim and for relief as prayed and the O.P. No.3 is not at all liable or responsible to  pay  such claim/relief.  In view of the facts  the complaint is liable to be rejected/dismissed with heavy cost.

        Heard from the parties.  Perused the record, documents, written version filed by the parties. The complainant appeared in person   and  the learned counsels for the O.Ps vehemently argued  touching the points  both on the facts as well as on law.  After hearing from both the parties  it is to be decided that non refund of 5% tax  money  by the O.Ps  to the  complainant is  unfair trade practice or not ?                    

                                                FINDINGS.

        Undisputedly the complainant had purchased one Bolero SLX vehicle  from the O.Ps on Dt. 21.10.2013  on payment  of consideration a sum of Rs. 7,50,111/- (Copies  of the Quotation, Delivery challan,  Certification of Registration  which  are  in the file  marked as Annexure-I to III.

        This  forum  relied citation  it is held and reported  C.P.R. 2012(1) page No.  45 where in Hon’ble Kerala  State C.D.R.Commission  observed  “Complainant can not be blamed  for any indiscretion on his part when he has submitted required papers within time permitted”. Automobile-Rebate  on excise duty-claim  rejected on the ground of belated submission of documents- Appellants are under orders to  towards excise duty  rebate—Delay on part of Dealer in forwarding documents to manufacturer stands  established- It was for manufacturer to see that  excise duty  rebate order is obtained  and if order was adverse appeal is filed- Complainant   can not be blamed  for any indiscretion on his part as he has submitted required papers within time permitted-There is lapse on part of dealer as well as manufacturer.

        It is seen from Registration certificate  of  above  Bolero SLX  bearing  Regd. No. OD-18-A- 7893 the  complainant had registered the above  vehicle on Dt.06.11.2013  at   Rayagada  R.T.O office and obtained the  R.C.  inter alia copies of the  same had been  handed over to the O.P. No.1(Sub-dealer). The  counsel for the  dealer has submitted that  the entire responsibility to avail the refund is on the part of the manufacturer and that if the application was rejected by the Excise authorities the above order is  appealable vide section -25 of the Central Excise Act,  1944.  The O.P. No.3 (manufacturer) has not produced  any documents to substantiate the case that the application  was rejected  as it was belated  and also  as to whether   any delay condonation petition was filed  and also as to whether an appeal was filed.  We find  that the delay on the part of the dealer in forwarding the documents to the manufacturer  stands established.  All the same  it  was for the manufacturer to see that the excise duty rebate order is obtained  and if the order was adverse appeal is filed.   In the instant case we find that the complainant can not  be blamed for any indiscretion on his part  as he has submitted the required papers within the time permitted. There is lapses on the part of the dealer as well as the manufacturer and the responsibility is squarely on the part of the manufacturer to see that the required  applications are filed  in time as per the stipulated procedure and to see that if the order is erroneous the same is appealed against.

        In the circumstances we find that the manufacturer  is  liable to refund the  amount of excise duty  rebate to the complainant.  The dealer is also liable as the dealer has delayed the  forwarding of the required papers.

        In the present case in hand the  O.P No.1 & 2  had assured orally to the complainant that there was  a tax refunds scheme for the purchase of vehicle   5%  tax rebate on total purchase cost  and they said that it will come from the O.P. No.3. But after approaching to the O.Ps from time to time they have not complied the same and had  not any bill in corporating  its  genuineness, guarantee and as such  the O.Ps have  indulged  in unfair trade practice to the complainant.    The right  of the consumer was infringed  by the O.Ps and as such it is presumed that they are indulging  in unfair trade practices, for which the O.Ps are jointly and severally responsible.  Hence it is ordered.

                                        ORDER.

        In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps.

        The O.Ps are ordered to refund 5% of the total  purchase cost of the vehicle  Bolero SLX  Regd. No. OD-18A-7893  inter alia to  pay  Rs.4,000/- towards compensation  for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards  cost of litigation to the complainant  within  45 days  from the date  of receipt  of this order.

 

Service the copies of the order to the parties free of  cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this          22nd      day  of   September, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.