SAYA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED Vs. ANIL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition was originally filed by the Petitioner/ Opposite Party No.1 against Respondent No.1/ Complainant, Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No. 2 and Respondent No.3/ Opposite Party No.3, challenging the impugned order dtd. 19/9/2018 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No. 497 of 2012. However, vide order dtd. 25/11/2019, Interim Application no. 17914 of 2019 was allowed by this Commission whereby Respondent No. 3 was deleted from the array of parties.

(2.) Vide the impugned Order dtd. 19/9/2018, the Ld. State Commission had dismissed the Appeal while upholding the order dtd. 13/3/2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North West District), Shalimar Bagh, Delhi in Case No. 2155/2000.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a Maruti Omni Ambulance with Opposite Party No.1 by paying an initial booking amount of Rs.1,52,000.00 on 15/3/1996. The Complainant had booked the ambulance with an understanding that registered Nursing Homes/Hospitals would get 25% rebate on duty as per MUL Sales Policy Bulletin dtd. 24/8/1996. It is averred that the Opposite Party No.1 had promised to deliver the ambulance within 3 months of booking. However, the same was released seven months later, on a further payment of Rs.56,405.00. It was also averred that the Opposite Party No.1 had promised to get the Excise rebate to the Complainant by depositing the documents with the Excise Cell of MUL (Opposite Party No. 2) after getting them notarised, and the MUL who would then have further submitted the documents to Opposite Party No. 3. However, after a lapse of two months i.e. in January,1977, when the Complainant enquired about the Excise rebate from Opposite Party No.1, he was assured that all the documents had been submitted to the Manager, MUL. But the Complainant failed to get any positive response on further enquiries. Consequently, he visited the office of the Manager, Excise Cell, MUL where he was informed that the papers received from Opposite Party No.1 had been sent back in January, 1997 as they had not been notarised. The issue was taken up by the Complainant again with Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 after rectifying the mistake, again submitted the papers to MUL on 29/4/1997. The Complainant again wrote a letter dtd. 8/1/1998 and to his surprise and shock, he found that his papers/documents had not been submitted to M/s. MUL by the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant again approached Opposite Party No.1, but, the Opposite Party No.1 did not bother to redress his grievance. Hence, after great persuasion, a refund claim was submitted with Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Department, 1998 by MUL. It was rejected on the grounds that it was time barred as a result of which the Complainant had been deprived of the refund of the rebate amount. Hence, he approached the District Forum for refund of excise rebate and other ancillary reliefs.