State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramesh Sharma vs Concord Motors Ltd. on 19 February, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.) Date of decision :19.2.2008 Appeal No. A-569/04 (Arising from order dated 23.06.2004 passed by the District Forum, New Delhi , Barracks, K.G. Marg, New Delhi in compliant case No. C-926/01) Sh. Ramesh Sharma B-242, Block B, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi -110092 ..Appellant Through Sh. Manish Garg Advocate Versus 2. M/s Concord Motors Ltd. Through its Manager, 5, Scindia House, Cannught Place, New Delhi 2. M/s Telco Ltd. Through nits Regional Manager, 11th Floor International Trade Centre, New Delhi ..Respondents CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor President Ms. Rumnita Mittal Member1
Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgement.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not.
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral)
1. Vide impugned order dated 23rd June, 2004 passed by the District Forum the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of amount of Rs. 21,648/- charged by the respondent towards excess amount as component of excise was dismissed by absolving the respondent for charging of excess amount, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the appellant before the District Forum, in brief, was that the appellant had booked an Indica car Model DLS-V2 with respondent no. 1 and paid Rs. 3,81,946/- vide provisional sales order No. 22729 on 27.2.2001 and respondent had offered a cash discount of Rs. 2000/-. As per terms and conditions of the sales order, it was the condition that the buyer would have to pay price prevailing at the time of delivery. Further that the sale price of Rs. 3,81,946/- was in the form of vehicle price Rs. 3,70,760/- plus insurance Rs. 5,236/- plus road tax Rs. 5,500/- and accordingly a sum of Rs. 3,70,760/- was paid by a demand draft and Rs. 10,376/- was deposited in cash with respondent no. 1 on 27.2.2001. On 2nd March, 20001 on reduction of excise duty on cars in Union Budget respondent no. 1 advertised in newspapers that in keeping with the companys philosophy always ensuring the customers interest, Tata Indica was passing the entire benefit of excise dutiy reduction to the customers and new price structure was declared as Showroom price of Rs. 3,50,627/- plus insurance Rs. 5,256/- plus road tax Rs. 3,965/- total Rs. 3,59,848/- . The appellant was asked by the respondent no. 1 to take the delivery of the car and he took the delivery on 2.3.2001 but to utmost surprise and agony of the appellant, the respondent was charged Rs. 3,81,496/- and not Rs. 3,59,848/- and respondent refused to give discount of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant. The insurance of the vehicle was done on 2.3.2001 and it was valid up to 1.3.2002. The appellant alleged that he was illegally charged Rs. 21,648/- as excess amount, which he was entitled to get back plus Rs. 2000/- the discount agreed to be paid by respondent no. 1. Further that respondent no. 1 was informed by the appellant many a times to refund the amount but it has not adhered to the demand of the appellant. A legal notice was also sent but the same was not complied with. That in the terms and conditions of the sales order, it was specifically mentioned that the price prevailing on the date of delivery of the vehicle would be charged then respondent no. 1 has to charge Rs. 3,59,848/- and not Rs. 3,81,496/- as the delivery of the car was effected on 2nd March, 2001, date on which the provisional order was booked and appellant was also issued only a provisional sales order and was also told that delivery will take about 3 to 5 days. That respondent no. 1 also clandestinely got the car registered in the name of the appellant with authorities on 28.2.2001 itself without intimating the appellant and thereby committed breach of various sections of the Motor Vehicle Act.
3. As against this, the version of the respondent is that the excise duty was paid by the respondent no. 2 in the account of the government and respondent has not been benefited by charging the excess amount as alleged by the appellant. Further that if respondents have charged the prevailing price on 2nd March, 2001 then it would have been the violation of Rules, 1975 as the vehicle was rolled out from the factory of respondent no. 2 on 17.2.2001 itself and the vehicle as per booking order of the appellant was billed on 27.2.2001 and was registered in the name of the appellant as per his instructions. That respondents cannot think of any reduction of excise duty in the union budget on 22.2.2001 i.e. the date prior to the announcement of the budget and otherwise also they are not going to be benefited in any manner by amount allegedly claimed by the appellant from respondents Further that excise duty is not paid at the time of sale of the vehicle by the dealers, but at the factory gate when the vehicle is rolled out from the factory premises. Further that the revision of the excise duty deposited with Union of India is not within the powers of the respondent and they are not in a position to refund the same. That new price effective from 2nd March, 2001 was made applicable only to such customers who book the vehicle paying full price and gets the vehicle registered with the RTO and subsequently takes the delivery of the vehicle and, therefore, appellant was not entitled to claim the refund of Rs. 21,648/- . That the transaction was completed on 27.2.2001 when the order was booked and invoice was prepared and contracted discount of Rs. 2000/- was offered to the appellant and he was asked whether he would like to have a cheque or he would like the amount to be adjusted against accessories which he may like to purchase for his car but appellant was adamant to get his amount of Rs. 22,648/- back first and then only he would accept Rs. 2000/- discount. Further that appellant was requested to take delivery on 27.2.2001 but appellant did not turn up to take the delivery for the reasons best know to him. That the excise duty is not within the control of the manufacturer i.e. respondent no. 2 and the element which is in the control of the manufacturer is the basic price of the car i.e. built up on the basis of the direct material and labour and the profit margin while the other elements that are not in control of manufacturer is the excise duty, CST, LST, Octroi and other levies of the Central and State Government.
4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the District Forum rejected the plea of the appellant that the respondent has clandestinely prepared the invoice on 27.2.2001 and also clandestinely registered the vehicle in the name of the appellant on 28.2.2001 as the appellant failed to substantiate allegations through direct or indirect evidence.
5. We have perused the documents produced by the appellant and accorded careful consideration to the version of the respondent. Provisional sale order produced by the appellant clearly states that the price prevailing on the date of delivery of the vehicle will be charged as the delivery of the car and insurance cover was effected on 2nd March, 2001. In view of the terms of the contract between parties, the price to be charged by the respondent was as per prevailing price at the time of delivery and, therefore preparation of invoice on 27th February, 2001 and also getting the vehicle registered from RTO on 28th February, 2001is of no significance . What is material is the date of delivery as well as insurance cover issued by the respondent and delivered to the appellant.
6. The plea taken by the respondent that they were not in knowledge of reduction of the excise duty in the Union Budget is also of no help as it was the date of delivery which was important and date of registration of vehicle. If the respondent was not aware of the fact that excise duty would be reduced in the Union Budget why they were in hurry in preparing the invoice on 27th February, 2001 and also getting registration on the next date , which is otherwise not acceptable as the RTO takes their own time in getting the vehicle registered. Adverse inference can be drawn that the respondent not only clandestinely got this vehicle registered but also prepared invoice knowing it well that he had asked the appellant to come after 5-6 days to get delivery of the vehicle and accordingly he delivered the car on 2nd March, 2001.
7. Aforesaid reasons persuade us to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order with the direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 21,648/- charged besides Rs. 10,000/- as compensation including cost of litigation.
8. Order shall be complied with within one month after receipt of this order.
9. F.D.R./ Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
10. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member rk