Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/163/2003

Vinod.R.Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sales Manager,MGF Motors Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.Rubyraj

21 Feb 2011

ORDER


AlappuzhaCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
CONSUMER CASE NO. 163 of 2003
1. Vinod.R.NairParuthipallil House,Vazhuvadi,Thazhakkara,Mavelikara ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 29 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)

 

Sri. Vinod R Nair has filed this complainant before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- On the basis of the assurance of the Sales Executive of the first opposite party about the details of the vehicle and benefit  of 10 % excise duty rebate of  Hyundai Motor Car manufactured by M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd., he had purchased a Hyundai Accent DLS Motor Car from the first opposite party, vide sales invoice no. A/200200173 dated. 12.06.2002 for a sum of Rs. 6,80,091/-.  After completing the Registration formalities, as per the instruction of the first opposite party, he had submitted the certificate of taxi and other required documents, such as copy of RC document of permit after attested by a notary, to the second opposite party on 12.08.2002.   But after the receipt of the above document for the release of the Excise duty rebate, the first opposite party has not taken by further steps.  He contacted the first opposite party on several occasions, and requested to take steps for the release of the Excise duty rebate. On 22.05.2003 he sent an Advocates notice to the first opposite party showing the details. But the first opposite party had not turned up. Hence the complaint seeking relief.

2. Notices were sent to the opposite parties.  They entered appearance and filled version.  In the version of the first opposite party, it is stated that the complainant had purchased the said vehicle on 12.06.2002 and denied the assurance of their Sales Executive’s undertaking regarding Excise duty rebate, and that the Car is to be part for playing as a taxi. It is contended that the excise duty on the car is paid by the manufacturer of the car, ie. 3rd opposite party, and that any excise duty rebate will be obtained only to the manufacturer who is in turn pass it over to the Consumer/Complainant.  It is further stated that the complainant did not sent certificate of the registration and other papers in time to obtain excise refund.  It is stated that since the papers were furnished belatedly, excise duty rebate could not be obtained by the manufacturer, and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. In the version of the second opposite party, they have also stated the same objections as stated in the version of the first opposite party.

4. In the version of the 3rd opposite party, it is stated that the excise refund could not be proceed in the present case due to the complainant’s own delay in providing the relevant documents required to process for such refund.  It is stated that they had deposited the excise duty with the excise department at the time of invoicing the vehicle to its dealer ie. time where the vehicle leaves the factory premises for its onward retail sale and therefore any refund of the Excise duty has to be made by the Excise Department.  The claim of complainant was rejected by them on ground of late submission of documents.  It is further stated that the car should be registered as a Taxi  within  3 months from the date of invoice (21st May 2007) and that, this time limit, can be extended by a period of another 3 months at the directions of the Concerned Deputy or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.  It is further stated that the request for the Excise refund could not be entertained as the same was time barred.

5.   Considering the contentions of the parties, this forum has raised the following issues:-

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complainant is entitled to get the Excise duty rebate from the opposite parties?

3.Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite

    parties?

 

6. Issues 1 to 3:- On the side of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and produced documents and that he has been examined as PW 1 & cross examined by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Documents - Ext. A1 to A9 – marked. Ext. A1 is the copy of the Order Booking form dated. 11.06.2002 from MGF Motors Ernakulam in respect of the vehicle.  Ext. A2 is the copy of the sales invoice dated. 12.06.2002 issued to the complainant by M/s MGF Motors Ernakulam, relating to the schedule vehicle.  Ext. A3 is the copy of the certificates of Taxi registration of said vehicle on 22.07.2002 vide Registration No. KL04/L 4315. Ext. A4 series all the copies of certificate of registration and fees remittance.  Ext. A5 is the copy of the certificate dated. 05.08.02 of permit of a contract carriage and its period of validity was from 05.08.2002 to 04.08.2007.  Ext. A6 is the copy of the Advocate notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party, requesting to release the excise duty rebate.  Ext. A7 is the copy of the letter dated. 11.04.2003 sent by the complainant to the first opposite party.    Intimating the delay of short period for registration due to the hospitalization of the complainant and further shows that the complainant had entrusted the documents at the Alappey office as 12.08.2002.  E A8 is the copy of the condition of general exemptions to submit the documents.  It shows that the manufacture furnishes, the documents to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise of Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise within 3 months or such extended a period not exceeding a further period of 3 months for the clearance of the excise duty rebate. Ext. A9 is the copy of the delivery run sheet.

7. On the side of the opposite parties,  proof affidavit filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 and produced document – Ext. B1 marked. Ext. B1 is the copy of the letter sent by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party.  In the letter complainant has stated that he had purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party on 12.06.2002 and have registered the vehicle on 22.07.2002 ie. within 42 days of invoice. It is further stated that though the vehicle was registered within the period, he could not submit the papers since he was hospitalized more than 4 weeks, and requested to consider his claim.

8. On a careful readings of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the first opposite party vide sales invoice dated. 12.06.2002 for the sum of a Rs. 6,80,091/- after collecting the details of Excise duty rebate through the representative of the opposite parties. (Ext. A2).  In this respect it is to be noticed that there is no dispute regarding 10% Excise duty rebate for the said car which was registered for use solely for Taxi purpose.  After completing the registration formalities, as per the instruction of the first opposite party, complainant forwarded the necessary documents after attested by the notary, to the office of the 2nd opposite party on 12.08.02.  But the opposite parties have not taken any earnest effort to sanction the amount for its disbursement.  Instead of sanction and disbursement of the Excise duty rebate the opposite parties had raised unsustainable, contentions in order to defeet the offer.  The guide line (Ext. A8) shows, the period of submitting the documents.  The opposite parties are fully entitled to take further necessary steps to disburse the excise duty subsidy at the time of receiving the documents.  We have perused the entire documents produced by both parties. It can be seen that the documents are sufficient           to sanction and disbursement of the said benefit to the complainant in time.  But the opposite party unnecessarily committed the delay the matter with flimsy grounds.  As a responsible dealers the first and second opposite parties have to take required further steps is get the excise duty subsidy which is payable to the complainant. But they are taken a negligent view, to release the subsidy amount. All the contentions raised by the opposite parties have no locus standi and it lacks bonafides. The only contentions raised by the opposite parties, in this case are time limit. The opposite parties are not entitled to raise such a time limit in this case, since the complainant had purchased the vehicle and registered the vehicle as taxi on the basis of assurance given by the sales executive relating to subsidy amount. After, taking all the necessary formalities by the complainant, the opposite parties all on a sudden deviating from the assurance on the basis of unsustainable ground. The entire action on the part of the opposite parties are wholly illegal and unauthorized.  The opposite party have no right to retain the excise duty subsidy payable to the complainant without any valid and sufficient reason. The negligent attitude of the opposite parties in sanction and disbursement of the subsidy amount to the complainant, will amounts to deficiency in service and culpable negligence. For this, the opposite parties are answerable to the complainant, we have thoughtfully considered the entire evidence of this matter and heard the case in detail. In this circumstance it is to be noticed that the contentions raised by the opposite parties cannot be accepted a valid ground for the denial    of the excise duty subsidy to the complainant. The complainant is fully entitled to get the subsidy amount from the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to release the same to the complainant. Hence, the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite parties are to be treated as genuine. So we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for.

9.  In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to release the excise duty rebate of Rs. 68091/-  (Rupees Sixty eight thousand and ninety one only) to the complainant together with a  compensation of Rs   10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the mental agony, physical strain, loss, inconvenience, harassment and sufferings of the complainant due to the deficiency in service and culpable negligence, dereliction of duty and inordinate delay in sanction and disbursement of the Excise duty rebate in time to the complainant together, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-  (Rupees Two thousand only) for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to pay the said amounts to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. We further orders that in case any default to pay the said amount  within the above period by the opposite parties to the complainant, the opposite parties shall pay in tenant at the rate of 14% for the Excise duty rebate allowed by this order .

            Pronounced in open Forum, on this the 29th day of January 2010.

Sd/-  Sri. Jimmy Korah:

Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi:

 

Appendix :-

Evidence of the complainant     

 

PW1                            -                       Vinod B Nair (Witness)

Ext. A1                        -                       Order Booking Form (Photocopy)

Ext. A2                        -                       Sales Invoice (Photocopy)

Ext. A3                        -                       Certificate of Taxi Registration (Photocopy)

Ext. A4                        -                       Certificate of Registration (Photocopy)

Ext. A5                        -                       Permit in respect of a Contract Carriage (Photocopy)

Ext. A6                        -                       Copy of the registered Suit Notice dated 22.05.03

Ext. A7                        -                       Letter dated 11.04.2003 (Photocopy)

Ext. A8                        -                       Condition of the General Exemption No. 66

                                                            (Photocopy)

Ext. A9                        -                       Delivery Run Sheet (Photocopy)

 

The evidence of the opposite party:-

 

                       

Ext. B1             -                       Letter from the complainant to the 3rd opposite party

                                                            (Photocopy)

 

 

// True Copy //

 

                                                                                    By Order

 

   

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

 

Typed by:- vo/-

Compared by:-

 

 


HONORABLE K.Anirudhan, MemberHONORABLE JIMMY KORAH, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi, Member