ARYAN AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD Vs. PAWAN DHONDIRAM TAPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.3.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1107 of 2000 Aryan Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pawan Dhondiram Tapde by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no.1 applied to D.I.C for sanction of loan to purchase a goods tempo D.I.C. recommended the file to Janata Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune, Branch Latur and the bank sanctioned the loan to the complainant to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- approximately. Accordingly the complainant approached the OP No.1 to 3/Petitioner & Res. No. 2 & 3 and inquired about purchase of vehicle. The respondents 1 and 2 represented readiness to sell the vehicle with all the facilities to the unemployed educated like complainant as per the Government policy. Therefore, the complainant obtained demand draft in the name of respondent no. 3 for Rs.5,06,001/- and paid the amount to the OP No. 1 to 3 under the said demand draft toward purchase of the vehicle. The OP No. 1 to 3 delivered a tempo to the complainant on 2.10.1996 at Latur. At that time the OP no. 1 and 2 represented that after obtaining certificate from Collector the complainant would be entitled for refund of sales tax amount, which was already collected by the OP No. 1 to 3 from the complainant. There is exemption of sale tax on vehicle sold to educated unemployed under SEEU scheme. Believing on the said representation the complainant had paid the full amount to the OP No. 1 to 3 under the demand draft dated 26.9.1996 including the amount of sale tax. That thereafter the complainant approached to the District Collector, Latur and obtained the certificate dated 15.11.1996 to the effect that the complainant is eligible for assistance under the scheme and for exemption of sale tax as his loan file was recommended under SEEU scheme. The complainant submitted the said certificate with OP No. 1 and 2 at the shop of OP No. 2 at Latur. Mr. Hingmire, Marketing Manager of OP No. 1 was present that time. OP No. 1 and 2 accepted that documents and assured refund of sale tax at an earliest but tax was not refunded. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, admitted sale of vehicle and further admitted scheme of Government for exemption of sale tax to educated unemployed under SEEU scheme. Assurance regarding refund of sale tax was denied. It was further submitted that sale tax recovered has been paid by the OPs to Government treasury and they are not beneficiary of the amount, so, they are not responsible for refund of amount. Denying any deficiency on their part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that OP is not concerned with sales tax examination as per Government scheme. Sale Tax has been charged as per rules and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing parties allowed complaint and directed OPs jointly and severally to refund Rs.29,796.06 with 18% p.a. interest and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of litigation Rs.700/-. Appeal filed by OPs was partly allowed by learned State Commission by impugned order and interest was reduced from 18% to 9% against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for Respondent no. 2 even after service of notice and he was proceeded ex-parte.