PEAREY LAL And SONS LTD. vs CAPT. KARTAR SINGH

THIS is an appeal by M/s. Pearey Lal & Sons, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun, dealer of Maruti Van, as he then was, against the order dated 22.5.1995 directing the opposite party Maruti Udyog and the dealer Pearey Lal & Sons to pay a sum of Rs. 21,000/- to the complainant together with simple interest to the complainant.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Maruti Van out of Taxi quota from opposite party No. 3, Pearey Lal & Sons, the authorised dealer of Maruti Van, opposite party No. 1 Maruti Udyog Ltd. THE complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 21,000/- as excise duty. It was to be refunded to the complainant on production of certain papers. THE said papers were produced, but still the excise rebate was not refunded to the complainant. THE documents for rebate have been submitted to opposite party No. 1 on 15.3.1993. It appears that the appellant Pearey Lal & Sons and accordingly Maruti Udyog did not approach the Excise Department and accordingly refund order was not passed. Before the Forum, the appellant and other opposite parties became absent and as such the proceedings had proceeded ex parte. THE complainant has filed an affidavit but it went unrebuted. Before the Forum as well, there was a written statement of the opposite party and the learned Forum has given a very detailed finding that the complainant was a consumer during this appeal as well, this plea was raised. For this, our attention was drawn on the affidavit of the complainant dated 14.3.1995 in which in para 5 he deposed that the car was purchased for use as Taxi by the deponent with the sole object of earning his livelihood to augment his family income. It was argued that there is such a plea but there is no plea of self-employment. THE strict rules do not apply to summary proceedings like this. Secondly also, where both the parties have entered into evidence, pleadings become immaterial. THE opposite party did not lead any evidence that the claimant was in employment. It was argued on the strength of the ruling reported in I (1995) CPJ 111, P.K. Rameshan v. M.O. Hassan, Kuthoos Maricar Ltd., that there is no plea that the claimant will personally drive the car. In our view, self-employment does not mean to become a driver. If a person keeps himself engaged in looking after the affairs of that taxi, it comes in the category of employment. THE learned Forum has given a definite finding that the vehicle was not purchased for commercial purposes. It is true that the opposite party has got no opportunity to revert the evidence in the District Forum but here too, it did not produce any evidence that it was for commercial purpose. THE complainant has definitely pleaded that he has got no other taxi. Thus, if he has purchased a taxi for his livelihood and to increase the income of the family, it cannot be said that the vehicle is for commercial purpose. THEre is no law that livelihood is to be seen only of the claimant and not of his entire family. THE income is for the whole family and if a vehicle is purchased for the income of the whole family it cannot be said that it is for commercial purpose. THE plea will not stand. THE second plea was that the order of the refund was to be made by the Maruti Udyog. Maruti Udyog did not contest before the Forum. It did not appear in this appeal as well. Taken the plea as true, the deposit was made to the opposite party. THE vehicle was delivered by it. He was the dealer in between. Every activities were performed through him and even if the rebate could have been received, it could have been paid to the complainant through the dealer. Thus, the liability of the dealer shall be there and if the rebate has to come through the Maruti Udyog, it is a matter between opposite party No. 3 dealer and Maruti Udyog. THE dealer may claim indemnification against the Maruti Udyog but for that reason, the claim of claimant cannot be defeated. It was argued that the refund of excise duty shall not come within the four corners of the Act. Similar case was before Chandigarh Commission in the ruling reported in I (1997) CPJ 22, Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Piara Singh, wherein security deposit was to be returned on production of certain documents. It was held that the District Forum has got jurisdiction. Exactly, the similar case of refund of excise duty, wherein also, the Maruti vehicle was purchased to ply as taxi through Pearey Lal & Sons, the appellant of this case from the manufacturer, Maruti Udyog. On refund of the excise duty, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow Commission wherein, this appeal was initially filed, has ordered for the refund of the excise duty by the appellant and it is said that the said amount has been refunded to him. In the ruling reported in III (2002) CPJ 30 (NC), Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise v. Rajesh Bhatti, wherein also, the dispute was for the refund of the excise duty, the National Commission has held that although the petition shall not lie against the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise but definitely, there was deficiency in service by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the claim of refund was allowed against the Maruti Udyog Ltd. It cannot be said, now, that the Consumer Forums has no jurisdiction to order for the refund of the excise duty. This appeal has got no force and is to be dismissed. ORDER

The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of the appeal shall be easy, however, it is directed that if the amount of the award is paid by the appellant, it shall be indemnified by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. who has been a party in the District Forum as well as in this appeal. But the complainant shall have a right to realise the amount jointly as well as severally from both, the dealer and the supplier i.e., the appellant and the Maruti Udyog. Appeal dismissed.