Maruti Udyog Limited vs HARISH CHANDER PAHWA

HARISH Chander Pahwa purchased a Maruti Van as taxi on 1.9.90 from the respondents and it was Registered as such on 17.9.90 with the State Transport Registering Authority, Chandigarh. It was after this registration, the complainant was entitled to a refund of Rs. 15,309.04. The District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh ordered that a sum of Rs. 15,309.04 together with interest @ 18% w.e.f. 1.4.91 shall be payable to HARISH Chander Pahwa, the consumer. Aggrieved against it, present appeal has been attempted.

THE relevant part of the invoice dated 1.9.90 Annexure C-1 issued by the appellants to this customer is as under : "Excess payment received from customer 10,317.27 Security refundable by MUL on receipt of copy of R.C. Book Certifying registration as TAXI subject to clearance from excise authorities. 4,991.77 Balance recoverable from customer 15,309.04"

THE fact that the vehicle in question was Registered as a taxi on 17.9.90 is well established from, the particulars given in Annexure C-2 and also a photocopy of the certificate of registration placed on record on our demand. 3.We are satisfied that the complainant is comparatively a semi educated person had been approaching the local dealer and that the vehicle has been registered as taxi but there was no satisfactory response. On behalf of the respondent No. 1 it has been pointed out that the monopolist scarcely devote any attention to such casual customers. This is fortified by the fact that this sum of Rs. 15,309.04 remained undisturbed by the appellants till 16.5.91 when this sum was remitted to the Central Excise Department. 4. On behalf of the appellants'' considerable stress it has been laid on the plea that the refund of Rs. 15,309.04 was a kind of free service and the complainant had no cause of action to approach the Forum or the Commission for this purpose. It was a single transaction pertaining to sale of a motor car to a prospective taxi driver. It was a part of the agreement that the dealer was required to refund the amount of the Central Excise as soon as he was approached by the customer for the refund. THE customer not only approached the local distributor but also the manufacturer. He wrote a large number of letters including one to the manufacturer at Gurgaon. Copies of the correspondence have been placed on record as Annexures C-2 to C-10. All these letters contain his request for excise rebate mentioning the bill of invoice dated 1.9.90 through which the vehicle was purchased. THE contention that Harish Chander Pahwa was not a consumer is not acceptable in the circumstances of the case. 5. THEre is a peculiar situation here. THE amount has been remitted to the Central Excise Department by the appellants. This was deficiency. It is not a case that the appellants themselves are retaining this amount after 16.5.90. We partly accept the appeal on account of deficiency. THE appellants shall pay a lump sum Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. It should be done within a period of one month failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 18% from the date of this judgment. THE complainant and the respondent dealer may approach the Central Excise Department for refund of the amount, if feasible. 6. Announced. THE order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Appeal partly accepted.