K Chandrasekaran vs Stanes Motors South India Ltd

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the Order dated 10th November, 1994 of the State Commission by which it set aside the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint and awarded Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant as ordinary damages caused by one monthss delay in the delivery of the vehicle and taking into account the increase in price. A further sum of Rs. 2000/ - was also awarded as loss of profit for one month as the complainant could not use his vehicle as a taxi.

THE facts as gathered from the record are that the complainant obtained a proforma invoice dated 20th November, 1989 from the respondent herein arrayed as opposite party in the complaint for purchase of Ambassador Diesel Car for tourist taxi purpose. The complainant arranged with M/s. Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Erode Branch and the said Corporation paid the above amount to the opposite party who acknowledged the receipt of the payment vide their letter dated 28th December, 1989. The opposite party did not deliver the car to the complainant. According to the complainant, opposite party delivered cars to other persons who made payment after 28th December, 1989 i.e. after the complainant had paid the full price of the car. He was delivered car on 28 th February, 1990 but by that time the price of the car has been increased by Rs. 5,203/ - which the complainant paid. It is the further case of the complainant that the Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced an Ordinance called ''Tamil Nadu Tax on entry of Motor Vehicle into local areas'' which came into force w.e.f. 20th February, 1990. As per the Ordinance and rules framed thereunder the complainant had become liable for payment of entry tax in respect of the vehicle. The grievance of the complainant is that he became liable to pay the said tax due to the unexplained delay on the part of the opposite party who was bound to deliver the vehicle to the complainant within a reasonable time. This delay amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant claimed Rs. 22,372/ - which has been demanded by the Commercial Tax Officer in view of the Ordinance referred to above plus Rs. 15,000/ - towards the expenses incurred by the complainant for making several trips to Pondicherry where the showroom of the respondent is situated. He also claimed Rs. 25,000/ - towards the compensation of the mental agony sustained by him due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.

THE complaint was contested by the opposite party. Its case is that the complainant wanted the Ambassador diesel car under taxi quota. One Ambassador diesel car was delivered to the complainant on 28th February, 1990. The price indicated in the proforma invoice is only the likely price and the purchaser was bound to pay the price prevalent at the time of the delivery and by that time the price had been increased. As the complainant had asked for a car from the taxi quota a specific vehicle earmarking the engine number and chassis number is despatched by the manufacturer for enabling the complainant to claim excise duty refund applicable for a vehicle realised under taxi quota. As there is some likely delay in despatch of car under taxi quota the complainant was advised that the delivery would be only between 6 to 8 weeks and thus there was absolutely no delay at all and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant within 8 weeks as promised. Some other customers might have received the vehicles earlier but those vehicles had been released under normal quota. Only it is under the taxi quota that the customer has to necessarily wait for release of a specific vehicle from the factory and it is not possible to deliver the vehicle to such a customer from the normal quota because it involves refund of excise duty. The opposite party is not responsible for the introduction of entry tax by the Tamil Nadu Government.

THE District Forum held that the complainant could get the delivery only as and when a particular earmarked vehicle was allotted to him. It was further held that there was no delay on the part of the dealer in giving delivery of the car to the complainant. The District Forum accordingly dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved the complainant filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry. The State Commission held that it had not been adequately shown that the delay in delivery was due to the fact of exemption of excise duty. However, about the Ordinance issued by the Tamil Nadu Government the Commission remarked that the complainant cannot shift the burden of the entry tax on the dealer as it was an unanticipated event. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the complainant and awarded Rs. 7,000/ - as mentioned above. The complainant has come before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition claiming enhancement of the compensation as claimed in the complaint.

WE have heard the Counsel for the Revision Petitioner and gone through the records. We are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to claim the entry tax levied upon him under the ''Tamil Nadu Tax on entry of Motor Vehicle into local area s''. The liability of entry tax is post contractual and therefore it cannot be passed on to the Dealer. Neither of the parties anticipated that on 20th of February, 1990 the Tamil Nadu Government will enforce entry tax on vehicles.

THOUGH the State Commission has held that there has been delay on the part of the dealer in supplying the vehicle but we are of the opinion that the dealer has given satisfactory explanation for the alleged delay in delivery of the vehicle. The complainant/petitioner wanted the car out of the taxi quota and so it had to be earmarked as such by the Manufacturer as it involves the refund of concession in excise duty. Thus the dealer could not deliver the car to the complainant out of the cars received by it for delivery in the normal quota. While taking delivery of the vehicle, the complainant did not protest about the enhanced price or about the delay in the delivery because he very well known about the procedure of the delivery of the car out of the taxi quota. It is the case of the opposite party that at the time of booking of the vehicle the complainant had been specifically told that the car would be delivered within 6 to 8 weeks and the delivery had been affected in that period. There is no rebuttal of this plea of the opposite party. Thus we do not find that the opposite party is guilty of any negligence nor was the service rendered by it deficient. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any force in the present Revision Petition and dismiss the same.