AVADH BEHARI LAL vs REGIONAL MANAGER, MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 783/1999.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Sri Avadh Behari Lai, the complainant, purchased a Maruti van bearing Chassis No. 881597, Engine No. 649500 from the opposite party, Kanpur Tractors (P) Ltd., the dealer of opposite party No. 1 , Maruti Udyog Limited on 19.8.1991 for a consideration of Rs. 1,65,417.30 for purpose of plying the van as taxi. Soon after the delivery of the vehicle all the papers along with original registration certificate were submitted to the dealer on 13.9.1991 for onward transmission to Maruti Udyog Limited, opposite party No. 1 for necessary action with regard to the refund of excise rebate as announced by Government of India for the vehicle purchased under "taxi'' quota. The original registration certificate was returned by Kanpur Tractors (P) Ltd. in the second week of November, 1991 to the effect that the refund of the excise rebate will be made within a period of three months from the date of submission of papers on 13.9.1991. The complainant sent a letter to opposite party No. 1 on 19.5.1992 requesting for refund of the excise rebate at the earliest but the said excise rebate has not been refunded so far to the complainant. A claim has, therefore, been made before the learned District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of excise rebate along with interest for the period to the complainant. The opposite party, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited in the written statement before the District Forum .stated that basic condition for claiming excise rebate on the sale of a vehicle to be used solely as taxi was the requisite post-registration document of the vehicle which was to be submitted before the Excise Authorities within three months from the date of clearance of the vehicle by the manufacturer. The opposite party submitted documents with the Central Excise Department on 24.9.1991. The Excise Authorities rejected all the claims filed during the relevant period against which an appeal has been filed. No money was lying with Maruti Udyog. The complaint was barred by limitation as it has not been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. It was also stated that the Collector, Central Excise, Gurgaon has not been impleaded as one of the necessary opposite parties as refund is granted by that Authority. The complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle in question was purchased under the taxi quota and the same is covered under commercial purpose. The vehicle of complainant was invoiced on 29.8.1991 and the case for rebate was submitted on 24.9.1991. The rebate in excise duty is refundable to the complainant only after the Central Excise Authorities have sanctioned it. The case of refund of excise duty is not covered under the definition of Consumer Protection Act.

The other opposite party, M/s. Kanpur Tractors (P) Ltd. in the written version before the District Forum has stated that the application for sanction of excise rebate should have been addressed by the complainant to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and since the matter relates to the excise duty rebate, the same is not maintainable before the Forum and as such no deficiency of service has been caused by them.

THE learned District Forum, after hearing the concerned parties, came to the conclusion that the claim has not been filed within the time allowed under the Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties were not responsible for granting the excise rebate to the complainant which is granted by the Central Excise Authorities. THE complaint was, therefore, dismissed. Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the complainant has come in appeal.

IN the memo of appeal it has been stated that the opposite party, M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, took upon themselves to apply for the refund of the excise duty rebate to the purchaser of the vehicles purchased for taxi purpose which was part of service which is to be rendered by them. Cause of action will persist because the complainant has been pursuing the case with the respondent and the appeal of Maruti Udyog is still pending as acknowledged by respondent No. 2 before the Forum. Excise rebate is refunded by Maruti Udyog to the customers through dealers on receipt of refund from the Excise Authorities. It was due to omission on the part of opposite party No. 1 that the refund of the excise duty rebate was refused and, therefore, deficiency is on the part of the opposite parties. The respondent, Maruti Udyog Limited filed objections stating therein that excise duty is a Central Government tax and not consideration for value of the goods. Maruti Udyog Limited has tried to get the refund of the amount which was refused and an appeal was filed but that does not mean that the respondents have taken the responsibility of the refund. The Excise Department of Central Government should have been made a necessary opposite party in the case. The complaint was also barred by time as the vehicle was purchased in the year 1991 and the complaint was filed in 1994. We have gone through the evidence on record. We have also heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the two parties.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that since the complainant has been pursuing his case after submission of the papers for grant of excise rebate even now the cause of action still continues and, therefore, the complaint was not time-barred. This will be substantiated by the fact that Maruti Udyog Limited have been pursuing the case of excise rebate by filing an appeal. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the Maruti van was purchased for commercial purpose as a taxi and the complainant was not a consumer. THE rebate was claimed by M/s. Maruti Udyog but the Central Excise Department did not grant the said rebate.

THE case of the complainant, who is the appellant, is that on the vehicle''s purchase and used as taxi, a certain amount of excise rebate was admissible to the complainant and the papers were to be sent through the respondents, which formality was completed by him in time. In the circumstances it was the responsibility of the respondents to have cleared the excise rebate in favour of the complainant. A perusal of evidence placed on the appeal file goes to reveal that the respondent, Maruti Udyog Limited had preferred a claim before the Central Excise Authorities and the same was not sanctioned against which an appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority. THE vehicle in question was purchased for certain considerations which was paid. It was nowhere guaranteed that the excise rebate will certainly be payable to the complainant. However, efforts were made by the respondents but the amount has not been sanctioned as yet. THEre is, therefore, no deficiency on the part of the respondents. Rebate in excise duty is granted by Central Government and it is not in the hands of the respondents who did make efforts to get the rebate sanctioned, but have so far failed. We are in agreement with the contention of the respondent that the rebate in terms of excise duty comes from the Central Government and is not automatically generated by the respondents. In case the rebate has been sanctioned and then detained by the respondents then the case would have been different. Since the Government of India has not sanctioned the excise rebate, the respondents cannot be compelled to part the money. In the circumstances, the District Consumer Forum was quite justified in dismissing the complaint and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the District Forum and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed.

In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to the costs.

LET copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.