PRIYALATA PANDA Vs. MARUTI UDYOG LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -IN this revision by the complainant against the order dated 24. 4. 2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Orissa, Cuttack allowing appeal No. 175/1996 and exonerating Maruti Udyog Limited, respondent No. 1 from paying total amount of Rs. 21,973 with interest, only few facts need be referred to. Petitioner had purchased a Maruti Van from M/s. Rolta Motors Ltd. , respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 5, dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd. and delivery of the van was taken on 24. 12. 1992. Petitioner was entitled to certain excise rebate. Rebate was admissible on petitioner's submitting the necessary papers to the Excise Department within 90 days of the raising of invoice. Invoice was raised on 10. 12. 1992. Petitioner alleged that for claiming the rebate, she submitted the papers to respondent No. 2-dealer on 12. 1. 1993, but the dealer sent the papers to respondent No. 1 on 17. 31993. In turn, the papers were sent by respondent No. 1 to the Excise Department on 19. 3. 1993. By that time said 90 days period had already elapsed. Complaint filed by the petitioner on contest, was allowed by the District Forum vide order dated 28. 11. 1995 with direction to both the respondents and Chetan Kumar Singh, M. D. and L. D. Swain, Manager of respondent No. 2 (impleaded as opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 in the complaint) to joinly and severally pay excise rebate of Rs. 21,973, Rs. 3,000 as compensation within two months failing which interest was payable on the awarded amount @ 12% per annum. This order was set aside only qua Maruti Udyog Ltd. , respondent No. 1 in their appeal by the aforesaid order dated 24. 4. 2002.

(2.) SHORT submission advanced by Mr. N. K. Sahoo for the petitioner is that Maruti Udyog Ltd. being principal of respondent No. 2 is also liable to pay the awarded amount. On the other hand, it is argued by Shri K. P. S. Rao for respondent No. 1 that Maruti Udyog Ltd. was only a facilitator and rebate was to be paid by the Excise Department. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No. 1 as the papers received by them on 17. 3. 1993 were sent to Excise Department on 19. 3. 1993 without any delay. He points out that the petitioner could also apply for grant of refund of duty directly to the Excise Authorities under Section 11 (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 R/w two Notifications dated 1. 3. 1986 and 19. 6. 1992. There is considerable merit in the submission advanced by Mr. Rao, Advocate It is respondent No. 2-dealer who is liable to pay the awarded amount for the delay in forwarding the papers submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 1. On ground of respondent No. 1 being the principal liability in this cannot be fastened holding it to be deficient in service. Mr. Sahoo, Advocate points out that respondent No. 2 is now non-existent. That be so, recovery of the awarded amount can be made from said opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. In the facts and circumstances of case the parties are left to bear their own cost. Revision Petition dismissed.