KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 333/10 & 475/2010

                  COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 24-05-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

APPEAL  NO: 333/10

Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,

Through its authorized signatory-

5^th & 6^th floor,                                                      : APPELLANT

Corporate One (Baani Building),

Plot No.5, Commercial Centre,

Jasola, New Delhi.

(By Adv:Sri.Rakesh Thampan)

          Vs.

1.      Vinod R Nair,

Paruthippallil House,

Vazhuvadi, Thazhakkara,

Mavelikkara.

(By Adv:Sri.S.N.Sarma)

2.      The Manager (Sales),

MGF Motors Ltd.,

Willington Island, Matsyapuri.P.O,           : RESPONDENTS

Kochi – 682 029.

(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)

3.      Area Manager Sales),

MGF Motors Ltd.,

Punnapra North, Alappuzha.

APPEAL  NO: 475/10

1.      The Manager (Sales),

MGF Motors Ltd.,

Willington Island, Matsyapuri.P.O,           : APPELLANTS

Kochi – 682 029.

2.      Area Manager Sales),

MGF Motors Ltd.,

Punnapra North, Alappuzha.

(By Adv:Sri.S.Reghukumar)

          Vs.

1.      Vinod R Nair,

Paruthippallil House,

Vazhuvadi, Thazhakkara,

Mavelikkara.

(By Adv:Sri.S.N.Sarma)

                                                          : RESPONDENTS

2.      The Managing Director,

Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd.,

Tamil Nadu.

 (By Adv.Sri.Rakesh Thampan)

                                           JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are respectively the manufacturers/OP3 and the dealers/OP1 and 2 in CC.163/2003 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.68,091/- towards excise duty rebate and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- with interest at 14% on Rs.68,091/-.  It is the case of the complainant that he was entitled for excise duty rebate of Rs.68,091/- as the vehicle was registered as a taxi.  He had submitted the certificate of registration as taxi and other required documents to the dealer on 12/8/2002.  It is alleged that the 1^st opposite party/dealer did not take the required steps in time.

2.      The 1^st opposite party/dealer had contended that the vehicle was purchased on 12/6/2002 and that the vehicle was registered after considerable delay.  It is alleged that the complainant did not furnish the certificate of registration and other papers in time.

3.      The 3^rd opposite party/manufacturer has contended that the claim was rejected on the ground of belated submission of documents.  It is alleged that the vehicle should be registered as a taxi within 3 months.  It is the case that the excise duty rebate could not be entertained as the same was time barred.

4.      Evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1.

5.      It is seen from Ext.A9, the acknowledgement with respect to the post by courier sent that the concerned documents were received by the dealer on 13/8/2002.  The case of the manufacturer that the documents were received on 14/2/2003 has not been disputed by the dealer.  The counsel for the appellant/dealer has relied on the decision, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Gurgaon Vs. Rajesh Bhatti and Others, 2003 CTJ 716 (CP) (NCDRC) 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 Sec.25 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.  The 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 cannot be blamed for any indiscretion on his part as he has submitted the required papers within the time permitted.  There is lapse 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.

6.      In the circumstances we find that the manufacturer is liable to refund the amount of excise duty rebate of Rs.68,091/-.  The dealer is also liable as the dealer has delayed the forwarding of the required papers.  Hence the order of the Forum is modified as follows:-

7.      The 3^rd opposite party/manufacturer would be liable to refund Rs.68,091/- to the complainant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint.  The dealer ie the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  The direction to pay cost of Rs.2000/- is sustained.  The same shall be paid by both the opposite parties, ie Rs.1000/- each.  The amounts are to be paid within three months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% from 24/5/2011, the date of this order.

In the result Appeal:333/10 is dismissed and Appeal:475/10 is allowed in part as above.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.