State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Telco Senior Manager And Finance M/S ... vs B.Raja Reddy S/O.B.Narayana Reddy ... on 17 January, 2011
It is the complainants case that on 14-2-1995 he paid the entire sale
consideration of Rs
BEFORE THE
A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.753/2008
against C.C.No.278/2004, District Forum, Cuddapah.
Between:
1. The Telco Senior Manager and
Finance
M/s Tata Engineering Pimpri
Pune 411 018.
2. The Regional Manager
TATA Engineering No.406,
6th floor, IX Blue Cross
Chambers,
No.11, Infanty Road, Bangalore-560 001. ..Appellants/
Opp.parties 1 & 3
And
1. B.Raja Reddy
S/o.B.Narayana Reddy
Aged about 45 years,
D.No.1/36-3,
Akkayyapalli
Village, Ravindranagar
Post, Kadapa. Respondent/
Complainant
2. M/s.Malik Cars,
Road No.1, Opp:Taj
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
3. The Prasanthi Motors
4/15, Nagarajpet,
Kadapa-516 001. Respondent/
Opp.parties
2 and 4
Counsel for the Appellants:
Ms.Shireen Sethna Baria
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr.D.Kodanda Rami Reddy-R1
Mr.A.Muralidhar Reddy-R.2
R3-served
QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,
PRESIDENT
AND
SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER
MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
(Typed to the dictation of Smt. M.Shreesha , Honble Member.) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.278/2004 on the file of District Forum, Cuddapah, opposite parties 1 and 3 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Tata Spacio from opposite party No.2 as per sale invoice No.53 and the vehicle was supplied on 15-6-2002 as per the terms and conditions between them. Thereafter he registered the vehicle under tax permit through RTO, Kadapa with registration No.AP 04 U 3807. The complainant submitted that he sent all the relevant documents to opposite party No.1 through opposite party No 4 for the purpose of receiving excise duty amount of Rs.40,000/-. It is the case of the complainant that the excise duty has to be returned to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of sale purchase agreement of opposite party No.1. He also got issued a notice to all the opposite parties on 31-10-2003 demanding return of the excise duty amount which was not repaid. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the excise duty of Rs.40,000/- with interest and costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 filed a counter contending that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and registered under taxi quota. They further contended that the complaint was filed for refund of excise duty in respect of a vehicle purchased and delivered at Hyderabad and hence the Forum had no jurisdiction.
The government issued a notification providing a time limit for claiming refund of Excise duty and in view of it, it was only 90 days from the date of invoice of the vehicle and the time started from the date of invoice raised by the manufacturer, i.e. M/s.Tata Motors Limited to opposite party No.2 but not from the date of purchase of the vehicle from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 was selling the vehicle through opposite party No.2, who was an authorized dealer and the complainant was required to forward his request along with relevant documents to opposite party No.2 within stipulated time. Opposite party No.2 would in turn forward the same to opposite party No.1 and then opposite party No.1 manufacturer would submit the claim to Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Department requesting for refund of excise duty. As the complainant did not submit the documents within 90 days period from the date of invoice, he was not entitled for refund of the excise duty. The excise duty was paid before the vehicle could be moved from out of factory of opposite party No 1 and the complainant submitted his application after expiry of 90 days and thus his request could not be processed. Opposite party No.2 sent the papers to TML on 20-7-2003 i.e. after more than one year and hence submitted that they are liable to refund Rs.40,000/-.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter and admitted the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant and if the owner of the vehicle used it as taxi, he was entitled to get refund of excise duty, subject to condition that the registration papers and taxi certificate be submitted within 90 days from the date of release of the vehicle from Tata Motors Sales invoice. It further contended that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as Central Excise Department was not made a party. It was not concerned to return the excise duty and if the purchaser submitted the papers to it it would forward the same to Tata Motors at Pune to get the refund and then Tata Motors would refund payment to opposite party No.1 on behalf of Excise Department and from them the amount would be passed to the purchaser. Except collecting and forwarding the documents to the manufacturer, it had no role to play. The documents were not submitted within the stipulated time but on the request of the complainant, the papers were forwarded to Tata Motors, Pune for consideration but Tata Motors informed that the claim was time barred and the complainant was not entitled for refund of the amount. It further submitted that this Commission in F.A.No.514/2005 dated 7-4-2005 dismissed a similar complaint holding that the complainant is not a consumer and prayed for dismissal of this complaint against.
Opposite party No.4 was called absent and was set exparte.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 and B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant without interest and costs within 60 days.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 and 3 preferred this appeal.
Both sides filed written arguments It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a vehicle (taxi) for the purpose of livelihood in the year 2002 vide invoice No.53 and the same was supplied to him on 15-6-2002 and he submits that the excise duty has to be refunded to him as per the terms and conditions of sale purchase agreement of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer and opposite party No.2 is the dealer, opposite party No.3 is the regional Manager of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.4 is the agent of opposite party No.1. It is the case of the complainant that he sent the relevant claim forms through opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.1 on 15-7-2002 i.e. within one month of the date of delivery of the vehicle. The complainant further contends that he had purchased the vehicle under taxi quota for means of livelihood and it cannot be stated to be for commercial purpose.
It is the case of the appellants/opposite party Nos.1 and 3 that the complainant has not submitted the relevant documents within 90 days from the date of release of the vehicle by TATA Motors and that this time of 90 days starts from the date of invoice raised by the manufacturer but not from the date of purchase of the vehicle by the complainant from the dealer. The complainant did not forward his request along with the relevant documents to opposite party No.2 dealer within the stipulated time and therefore there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. The dealer had sent the papers to opposite party No.1 on 20-7-2003 after a lapse of more than one year whereas the vehicle was supplied by the manufacturer to the dealer on 27-5-2002 itself, which is evidenced under Ex.B3.
Ex.A1 is dated 15-7-2002 and is the letter issued by opposite party no.4, an agent of opposite party no.1 and this letter is addressed to opposite party No.2 dealer and reads as follows:
To M/s Malik cars, Hyderabad.
Dear Sir, Sub: Excise duty refund-Reg.
Customer: B.Raja Reddy C/o.B.Narayana Reddy, Y36-3, Akkayyapalli Near Petrol Bunk, Cuddapah.
We are sending the following documents for arranging refund of Excise duty for the above vehicle which was delivered vide Invoice No.53 dated 15/6/2002 for your further action.
1. R.C. 4 copies notarized
2. certificate: original and 4 copies Xerox notarized Thanking you, With regards From the aforementioned letter, Ex.A1, it is clear that the complainant had forwarded his documents through opposite party No.4 to opposite party No.2 dealer on 15-7-2002 which is one month after the delivery of the car and also within two months of Ex.B3 which is dated 27/5/2002 i.e. the date on which the dealer has taken the car from the manufacturer. Therefore viewed from any angle, the complainant has sent the relevant documents to the dealer within the period of 90 days. The opposite parties never denied that opposite party No.4 is not their agent and in fact on page 2 of their counter, opposite party Nos.1 and 3 stated that the dealer as a favour collects the papers and forwards the same to the manufacturer. Hence it is the duty of the dealer to forward the documents to the manufacturer and it is the duty of the manufacturer, as stated in their counter, to forward the documents to the excise department and act as a facilitator. Ex.A1 evidences that the complainant has discharged his duty in handing over his documents to opposite party No.4 and for any mis-communication between the opposite parties, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.17/01/.2011