O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Admittedly, the complainant Shri Vishwajeet Sharma purchased a Maxi Cab manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. from its dealer the opposite party No.1 on 12-12-2009 which was financed by the opposite party No.2. The said vehicle was got registered by the complainant with the Registering and Licencing Authority, Bilaspur, on 29-12-2009 vide Registration Certificate Annexure C-2 vide Registration No. HP-01B-7777 as contract carriage. The complainant obtained National Permit for the vehicle in question Annexure C-3 and Contract Carriage Permit Annexure C-4.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to release an amount of Rupees 70,000/- with interest w.e.f. 29-12-2010, to pay a compensation of Rupees 20,000/- for harassment and mental pain along with cost of the complaint on the grounds that on the representation made by the opposite party No.1 to the effect that in case he would purchase the vehicle Bolero SL, there was a scheme for refunding of the excise duty in case the same was registered as taxi/contract carriage and on such representation he booked and purchased the said vehicle. The said fact was also confirmed by the opposite party No.2. After getting the said vehicle registered as contract carriage, the complainant filled up the application form and supplied all the documents and submitted the same along with all the relevant documents with the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 assured to refund the excise duty within 19 days, but failed. The complainant visited the opposite parties No.1 and 2 several times and asked them to refund the excise rebate of Rupees 70,000/- but they did not. Thereafter on 05-02-2010 as per the instructions of opposite party No.2 the complainant sent a request letter to Area Incharge, Mahindra and Mahindra, BO Chandigarh, for refunding of the said amount, but no response was received and thereby the complainant has spent Rupees 20,000/- for getting the refund but the same has not been refunded which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The opposite party No.1 has disputed the said claim of the complainant and has set up the defense that it never represented the complainant regarding refund of excise duty on registration of the vehicle in question by the complainant as taxi/contract carriage nor there was any scheme for refunding excise duty, hence the complaint is false and not maintainable.
4. The opposite party No.2 also disputed the said claim and has set up the defense that the opposite party No.2 never assured and confirmed the fact of refunding excise duty to the complainant if the vehicle was registered as taxi/contract carriage, nor the complainant ever requested for the refund of such excise rebate. The opposite party No.2 never assured the complainant for such refund hence the complaint is not maintainable against it.
5. During the pendency of this complaint the Mahindra & Mahindra Automobile, SCO-117, 17 Sector, Madhya Marg, was impleaded as opposite party No.3 and notice was not to it, but opposite party No.3 did not appear hence has been proceeded against exparte.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the complaint.
7. The complainant has failed to prove that any of the opposite parties assured or promised to get the excise duty amounting to Rupees 70,000/- refunded in his favour nor he has placed on record any such scheme floated by the Central Excise Department at the relevant time. In case any such scheme was launched by the Central Excise Department the complainant in such schemes was required to submit the application form along with relevant/ required documents within 90 days from the registration of the vehicle as taxi to the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased and in turn, the dealer was required to submit the case to the manufacturer and the manufacturer was required to send the case to the Central Excise Authority. Thereafter, the Central Excise Authority might have allowed the refund of the Excise rebate , if any.
8. Even otherwise assuming that there was such scheme being implemented by the Central Excise Department the complainant was required to prove that he submitted the application form along with requisite documents within the time frame with the dealer or the manufacturer as the case may be and the manufacturer of the vehicle in question claimed the rebate from the Central Excise Department as per rules, but the complainant has failed to prove firstly the operation of such scheme and secondly the submission of the application form along with relevant documents to the opposite party No.1 from whom he purchased the vehicle in question or to the manufacturer of the vehicle hence he has failed to prove his entitlement to get the excise rebate or any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has placed a proforma application on record as Annexure C-5, but the complainant has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the said application along with documents was ever submitted within the time frame to the dealer or its manufacturer. He has placed on record the application for refund of excise duty dated 05-02-2010 Annexure C-7 sent to the Area Incharge, Mahindra and Mahindra, Chandigarh. Vide said application he has sought information regarding the grant of such rebate, but the said authority had no power to get the rebate granted in his favour. The opposite party No.2 has financed the vehicle in question and has concerned with the grant of such rebate in the favour of the complainant.
9. In view of the discussion and findings recorded above, this Forum is bound to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties, as a result of which the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 23rd day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
