BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 1800/2007 against C.C. 86/2006, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar

Between:

Maruthi Udyog Limited

11^th Floor, Jeevan Prakash Building

25, Kasturiba Gandhi Marg

Gurgaon

New Deli – 110 001.                                    ***                           Appellant/

            O.P. No. 1         

                                                                   And

1. SH. Kanna Krishnan

S/o. SH. Hari, Age: 40 years

H.No. 2-3-113, Biowada

Karimnagar.                                                ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Complainant.

2.  Suguna Motors Pvt. Ltd.

15-1-59/1, Opp. Govt. Polytechnic

Autonagar, Cross Road

Warangal.                                                   ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                O.P. No. 2

3.  Suguna Motors Pvt. Ltd.

Hyderabad Road

Kothirampoor

Karimnagar.                                               ***                         Respondent/

O.P. No. 3.  

Counsel for the  Appellant:                :         M/s. Eranki Phani Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:             :         M/s. Gopi Rajesh & Associates (R1)

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA,  MEMBER.

    &

                                 SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER.
                  

FRIDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                This is an appeal preferred by opposite party No. 1 against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 34,635/- together with interest @ 9% p.a., and costs along with opposite parties 2 & 3. 

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Maruthi car on  6. 6. 2002  from  opposite party No. 2  authorised dealer of   appellant,  the  manufacturer of the car.    It was registered as  taxi cab.  At the time of purchase  opposite party No. 2  had assured that it would  refund Rs. 34,835.36  collected towards excise duty.    Later when he  requested opposite parties 2 & 3 to refund it did not do so and therefore he issued a notice and filed the complaint claiming the amount. 

3)                The Dist. Forum after observing that  none of  the opposite parties contested  and that  they were set-exparte and basing on the affidavit evidence  of the complainant and the documents  Ex. A1 to A8  directed  opposite parties 2 & 3 along with the appellant to pay Rs. 34,635/- to the complainant together with interest @ 9% p.a., from 7.12.2002 till the date of payment  and costs of  Rs. 500/-. 

4)                Aggrieved by the said order  the appellant preferred the appeal contending that  no notice was  received by it in the complaint.    Only after receiving  P.P. notice it came to know that a complaint was filed against it and an order equally passed against it,  directing  it to pay Rs. 34,635/- along with opposite parties 2 & 3.    In fact the vehicle was registered as taxi cab on  10.6.2004.    It had submitted the documents  with Central Excise Department, Government of India on 12.7.2004 within a week  after receiving the documents from its distributor.    However the Central Excise Department  rejected the claim for excise duty rebate  in respect of the vehicle of the complainant for the reasons that the complainant failed to submit original certificate from the State Transport Department  to the effect that the vehicle has been registered as  taxi.    There was no deficiency in service  on their part. 

5)                Whatever be the reasons the fact remains that  a perusal of the record shows that  no notice was ever served  on the appellant.   Even the complainant claimed the amount against  opposite parties 2 & 3 only he did not claim the amount from the appellant.   The Dist. Forum ought not to have directed the appellant also to pay the amount along with opposite parties 2 & 3 when no prayer was made against it.   Though the pleadings in this regard is ambiguous,   in the sense,   at one stage  he mentioned that he approached  opposite parties 2 & 3  and that they assured  to refund the amount,    however, he immediately  made a fleeting statement  that all the opposite parties refused to refund  and as such  it constitutes deficiency.    It is not the case of the complainant that appellant was liable to pay the amount.   The order  passed against the appellant cannot be sustained.    Since the complainant could not establish that  the appellant had promised to refund the excise duty, we are of the opinion that  the order against appellant/opposite party No. 1 does not sustain. 

6)                 In the result the appeal is allowed.  The appellant is absolved of its liability.  However, the order of the Dist. Forum directing  opposite parties 2 & 3  to pay  Rs. 34,635/-  stands.  No costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

3)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                              Dt.  19. 03.  2010.

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”