BAJRANG MOT Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.10.1999 passed by the District Forum, Almora, whereby a refund of Rs.30,000/- as excise duty with 12% interest was allowed in favour of the complainant against the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is a registered dealer. From him, the complainant purchased a Jeep manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra Company on 22.7.1998 for a sum of Rs.3,16,094/-. He got the vehicle registered by RTO. The vehicle purchased was a taxi for self-employment to an unemployed person and the complainant was entitled to refund of excise duty. On 20.8.1998 the complainant informed about the purchase. The complainant requested the appellant to refund the excise duty. He again gave a letter on 30.10.1998, but refund was not allowed. Subsequently, he was informed through a letter dated 24.11.1998 that the vehicle has not been registered as a taxi within the stipulated time of 90 days from the date of the factory gate-pass. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any refund.

(3.) The complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, where it was alleged that the vehicle was purchased from Haldwani, whose head office is in Mumbai, Almora Court has got no jurisdiction. The appellant has got no right to order for a refund and there is no deficiency in service of the appellant. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties, the learned Forum held that the complainant is a consumer. Almora Forum has got jurisdiction and further held that the appellant is liable to refund the excise duty because through him the vehicle has been purchased.