Tribunals and Commissions(1994) 11 NCDRC CK 0040

K. Chandrasekaran vs STANES MOTORS SOUTH INDIA LTD.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 10 November 1994 · Citation: 1995 1 CLT 429 : 1995 1 CPJ 108

HON’BLE JUDGES
David Annoussamy , A.Veerapandian J.
RESULT
Appeal allowed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 727 words
1.

THIS is an appeal by the Complainant.

2.

THE essential facts are admitted by the parties and they are as follows:- A proforma invoice was issued to the complainant and he paid full value of the car as per the Proforma Invoice. He was delivered the car on 28.2.90 with a temporary registration which is valid for one month. THE complainant paid an additional amount of Rs. 5,203/- as the increase in price. He also received an excise duty concession of Rs. 5,600/as Taxi Driver. THE Tamil Nadu Govt., issued an ordinance with effect from 20.2.90 as per which the complainant has to pay an entry tax of Rs. 22,372/-. THE case of the complainant is that he had to pay that entry tax on account of the delay in the delivery of the car. His further case is that persons who have registered for the car after him have been delivered the car much earlier. Aggrieved in this manner he approached the District Forum with the following prayers:- (1) to pay a sum of Rs. 22,372/- together with interest; (2) to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the expenses incurred by the complainant to made serveral trips to Pondicherry; (3) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony sustained by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

The case of the Opposite Party is that even though cars were available much earlier, the complainant could not be supplied with one because he was entitled to excise duty exemption and, therefore, only a car earmarked for such concession has to be delivered to him and that the Opposite Party had to wait for the arrival of such a car. The District Forum by order dated 23.8.93 accepted the plea of the Opposite Party and dismissed the complaint.

The main ground of appeal is that the Opposite Party has not adequately shown that the delay in delivery was due to the fact of exemption of excise duty. It is accepted by the Respondent/Opposite Party that the procedure for concession, is that the entire price including the full excise duty is paid by the purchaser, then the refund of excise duty is made by the ultimate vendor who sends his papers to the manufacturer who in turn claims the benefit of excise duty concession. It is further explained that this procedure is resorted to because it has to be ascertained whether the purchaser is registering his car as taxi before the Transport Department. Only after such a registration, the duty concession is given in the form of reimbursement. This is what happened in this case. Therefore the plea put forth by the Respondent to explain the delay that he had to wait for the car earmarkedas a taxi is not acceptable. Therefore, the delay in supplying the car is not attributable to any excise concession but to other reasons better known to the Opposite Party.

3.

THERE has been some undue preference shown to other purchasers. Because of this discrimination the complainant had received the car with a delay of about one month as accepted by the Opposite Party. This being the case, what is the compensation and relief the Complainant is entitled to ? The complainant cannot shift the burden of the entry tax levied by the Tamilnadu Government on the vendor. This is anunanticipated event. For the delay caused by the Opposite Party he is liable only for any damages which he could have anticipated while causing the delay. He cannot be made liable to pay any unanticipated damages caused by an unexpected event. Therefore the .claim of Rs. 22,372/-levied as entry tax by the Tamilnadu Gov ernment cannot be allowed.

4.

AS far as the ordinary damage which was caused by one month delay is concerned, taking into account the increase in price, we fix it at Rs. 5000/-. In addition, there is loss of gain for one month as a taxi, which we fix at Rs.2,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,000/-. The complaint is dismissed for the rest of the claims without costs. The amount will carry interest at 15% from today till the date of full payment. Appeal allowed in part.