ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. The dispute involved in this case falls in a narrow compass i.e. refund of excise duty to the consumer by the dealer as the consumer had registered a Maruti Van under taxi quota for which at the relevant time of purchase excise duty concession was available and the refund was to be obtained by the dealer from the manufacturer, who in turn was to secure the same from the Central Excise Department.
Case of the Revision Petitioner
2. The revision petitioner was the respondent before the District Forum. The complainant had purchased a Maruti Van under taxi quota, which was eligible for excise duty concession to the tune of Rs. 7,000. As he did not get this money despite several rounds of correspondence, he filed a case before the District Forum for refund of the same along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and also compensation and cost. The District Forum accepted the complaint and ordered that:
the respondent shall keep on paying the interest amount at the rate of 12% per annum with a gap of after every six months till the matter in dispute is not decided by the ‘CEGAT’.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum M/s. Vipul Motors filed an appeal before the M.P. State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties directed that:
The appellants either to comply the order of the District Forum or to refund the amount of security deposited with its interest till the date of refund within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
4. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, M/s. Vipul Motors has filed this revision petition.
5. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Complainant:
(a) The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that a suit can be filed against Company only at Faridabad, Gurgaon and Jaipur and the Guna District Forum does not have the jurisdiction.
(b) Maruti Udyog Ltd. is a necessary party in this case as the Van is manufactured by them and they have to obtain the excise duty concession order.
(c) They have already deposited Rs. 4,800 in pursuance of the order of the District Forum.
(d) The CEGAT has decided the excise duty exemption case way back in 2000 and as the complainant had not made Maruti Udyog as a party, they have not got the amount.
6. Findings:
(a) The State Commission has discussed the issue of jurisdiction. The State Commission has rightly held that the complaint will not fall on the ground that all suits were to be decided by the Courts at Gurgaon only, it being not a suit. Moreover, there was a specific correspondence on the payment of the interest at Guna.
(b) The privity of contract is between the dealer and the buyer of the Maruti Van. The purchaser pays to the dealer. The dealer is to provide free service to the Van from time to time and the agreement is between the dealer and the purchaser and the dealer has to render all services to the consumer. Hence, it is not necessary to make Maruti Udyog as a party in this case. It is the responsibility of the dealer to obtain the refund of excise duty concession from the manufacturer.
(c) During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the CEGAT has decided to refund the amount way back in 2000 and they are yet to get the money from the Maruti Udyog and they produced a letter dated 14.9.2005 addressed by them to Maruti Udyog requesting them to refund the security deposit (excise duty) at the earliest. It also transpires that they continued to be the authorized dealers of Maruti Udyog.
(d) This is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner and hence we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed.
7. There shall be no order as to cost.