BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 59/2008 Filed on 28.03.2008

Dated : 17.01.2011

Complainant:

Sasidharan Nair, S/o K.N. Velu Pillai, T.C 2/2216, Melekeezhvanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. M.P. Sasidharan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Managing Director, Deedi Automobiles, Convent Road, General Hospital Junction (formerly Anjaneya Motors, Bypass Road, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram).

(By adv. James Ninan)

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ernakulam.

(By adv. Mohanan Pillai)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.10.2010, the Forum on 17.01.2011 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

The brief facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant remitted the value for one Chevrolet Tavera car intended to be used as a taxi car (KL-01-AQ-3447) and this vehicle has been purchased by the complainant for earning his livelihood. For the claim under Taxiquota(refund of excise duty rebate) the complainant submitted all the relevant records relating to the said car in time to the opposite parties. The said car was registered on 30.03.2007 as No. KL-01-AQ-3447 bearing chassis No. MA6AB6G767HA50398 and Engine No. 3AG50534. Complainant had sent all the relevant records relating to his taxi quota claim. But later the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that his taxi quota benefit has been rejected by the concerned authority. As per the terms and conditions the complainant has to get more than Rs. 36,000/- from the opposite party as taxiquota benefit in connection with the above said transaction. The respondents/opposite parties have not submitted the claim before the concerned authority in time. Hence there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to pay the above said claim of Rs. 36,000/- to the complainant since there is wilful negligence and latches on the part of the opposite parties. But so far the opposite parties have not paid the said amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 36,000/- along with compensation and costs.

The 1^st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Neither the complainant is a consumer nor the alleged dispute is a consumer dispute. That this opposite party is not a dealer of motor car. From the records produced by the complainant it is understood that he purchased the said motor car from one Anjaneya Motors and registered on 30.03.2007. That M/s Deedi Motors (P) Ltd opened a new showroom of motor cars (dealer of General Motors India Ltd.) on 24.08.2007, i.e; after five months of the alleged purchase of the motor car from Anjaneya Motors by the complainant. The complainant had neither remitted any amount with this opposite party nor purchased the alleged motor car from this opposite party. It is submitted that this opposite party is unaware to the alleged subsequent events of purchase of motor car by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs from this opposite party for the alleged loss suffered by him. None of the reliefs sought for by the complainant against this opposite party are allowable. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

2^nd opposite party in their version contends as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The manufacturer of the Chevrolet Tavera car and the Central Excise Authority having jurisdiction over the said area ought to have been impleaded in the respondents array. That the complainant has not submitted any application for refund of the duty amount alleged to have been due to him, before the 2^nd opposite party so far. This opposite party is not having knowledge of any transaction or any refund application alleged to have made by the complainant. The complainant does not specifically mention the authority that rejected the benefit due to him. The allegation that this opposite party had not submitted the claim before the authority concerned in time is actuated by malafides and does not deserve any consideration. There is no deficiency or negligence alleged to have occurred on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. That the Central Excise Notification No. 6/06 dated 01.03.2006 relates to the Excise duty exemption and accordingly the manufacturer of the vehicle has to file the claim for the refund of the duty amount before the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the manufacturing company within the stipulated time. It is the said Deputy Commissioner who shall finalize the claim for refund. In the present case the refund of duty is in respect of Chevrolet Tavera car purchased by the complainant. The manufacturing unit of the said car is not situated either at Ernakulam or at Thiruvananthapuram. Hence the question of refund of duty is not concerned with the Central Excise Department Offices situated at the said places. Hence the 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 36,000/- to the complainant and the averment of the complainant otherwise is only to be discarded. There was no wilful negligence or latches on the part of the 2^nd opposite party. The complaint may be dismissed as against the 2^nd opposite party.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and one witness on behalf of opposite party has been examined as DW1. Ext. P1 has been marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. D1 on the part of the opposite parties.

The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount claimed?

3. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The allegation of the complainant is that for the claim under Taxiquota for the vehicle purchased by him he had submitted all the relevant records relating to the said vehicle to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties had rejected the same. The 1^st opposite party has contended that the complainant has not purchased the alleged vehicle from them and he has neither remitted any amount with this opposite party and they are unaware to the alleged subsequent events of purchase of the said vehicle by the complainant. Ext. P1 which is the only document produced by the complainant is the certificate of registration of the alleged vehicle viz; Chevrolet Tavera bearing Registration No. KL-01 AQ 3447 and as per Ext. P1 the dealer's name is mentioned as Anjaneya Motors. But in the complaint the 1^st opposite party's name has been mentioned as Deedi Automobiles and the complainant has deposed that Anjaneya Motors has been taken over by the Deedi Automobiles. Despite the said contention of the complainant the same is not supported by any documents. Furthermore the complainant has admitted as PW1 that he has not given any amount to Deedi Automobiles and he has not taken the vehicle from Deedi Motors. Furthermore the complainant has admitted that he has not given any records relating to excise rebate to the 1^st opposite party and he has given all the records to Anjaneya Motors. When the complainant has taken out a contention that Anjaneya Motors has been taken by Deedi Automobiles the burden is on the complainant to prove the said allegation which the complainant has miserably failed. The 2^nd opposite party while cross examining the complainant put a specific question regarding the details of the terms and conditions and refund of Rs. 36,000/- for which the complainant had answered that these are the terms which Anjaneya Motors had orally submitted to him. As such there are no records for the alleged excise rebate. Inspite of the contention of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party has rejected the claim it is not supported with any documents. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that what are the documents submitted by him to the opposite parties and when were those documents submitted. From Ext. P1 it is evident that 1^st opposite party is not the seller of the vehicle and there is no evidence to show that any records were submitted to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant. The complainant as PW1 has admitted that he has not pleaded in the complaint that 1^st opposite party had entrusted the claim for Taxiquota to the 2^nd opposite party. Furthermore DW1 has deposed that the complainant has not sent any documents through 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party for tax rebate.

The 2^nd opposite party has taken out a contention that the manufacturer has not been made a party and hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is true that the manufacturer of the vehicle Chevrolet Tavera has not been made a party in this case. From the records and evidence before us we find that no negligence or deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the 1^st opposite party Deedi Automobiles and the 2^nd opposite party the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. The complainant has miserably failed to establish any negligence on the part of these opposite parties and in the light of the above, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 17^th day of January 2011.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 59/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sasidharan Nair

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of certificate of registration

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - R. Venkideswara Iyer

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - General exemption clause No.68

PRESIDENT

jb