MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. PUSHAP RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a chequered history. Complaint was filed before District Forum at Mandi. It was registered as complaint case No. 134/1994 and was dismissed on 5.8.1996. Substance of the dismissal order shows that it was found to be premature. When grievance of the respondent not redressed by the appellants, he again filed a complaint on 13.8.1999. It has been allowed on 19.4.2000 by the said forum in the following terms: In view of above discussion, complaint is allowed and respondent No. 1 ordered to refund the excise rebate of Rs. 15309 to complainant with interest at the rate of15% PA from the date of present complaint i.e. 13.8.1999 till payment and also do pay Rs. 2000/ - as compensation and Rs. 500/ - as costs.

(2.) In this background present appeal has been filed. It was barred by time, but delay was condoned by this Commission and there after appeal was entertained. An application dated 10.5.2003 was also filed by the appellant for transposition of M/s Modern Automobiles respondent No. 2, as an appellant. As per order dated 12.5.2003, it was ordered to be transposed as an appellant by this Commission.

(3.) In this background Sh. Serkek, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint was barred by time and respondent No. 1 was not a consumer while claiming refund of Excise Rebate, as such the Forum at Mandi did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same because vehicle was sold at Shimla as such on this ground also complaint was liable to be dismissed while allowing this appeal. All these pleas have been controverted by Sh. Dheeraj Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1. Per him part of cause of action arose in favour of his client where in the event of amount having been remitted by the appellant in accordance with the provisions of law was to be received by his client and vehicle is registered at Mandi. He laid emphasis on the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1988, as well as Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and urged that it was for the appellants inter se to have submitted the claim for Excise Rebate to the authorities under law. Qua the appellant his client was a consumer and there was deficiency in service on the part of the former. Another fact that needs to be noted here is that inter se appellants there is direct conflict of interests as is evident from trie record of the Forum below.