The court emphasized the importance of complying with formalities for claiming a refund and held that the absence of evidence of such compliance led to the setting aside of the District Forum's order.

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The case of the complainant, that is, the respondent in this appeal, is that he paid a security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- for purchase of Maruthi Omni Van in the taxi quota. On payment of consideration, the van was delivered to him. He submitted the necessary documents showing that the vehicle was registered as a taxi, within two weeks from the date of deposit of security amount i.e. R.C. Book of the vehicle etc. The opposite parties have accepted to send the security deposit to the complainant, but they failed to do so. He, therefore, filed a complaint for a direction to the opposite parties i.e., the Manufacturer of Maruthi Udyog Limited and the dealer, Mahalaxmi Motors, for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from 1.6.91 until the realisation and award damages of Rs. 11,000/- and costs of Rs. 500/-.

2. The opposite parties No. 3 filed a counter denying the receipt of Rs. 10,000/- by way of security deposit. It is their case that if the excise refund is to be claimed, according to the Sales Policy Bulletin, the complainant has to forward to the dealer the Registration Certificate in original issued by the transport authority; photo copy of registration certificate (R.C. Book) attested by a Notary Public. It was only after the receipt and scrutiny of these papers, the claim for refund of 7% excise duty will be submitted to the Excise Authorities, for sanction. Only when the taxi registration documents were found to be correct, the excise duty will be refunded. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant also did not comply with all the formalities as required for claiming refund of the excise duty.

3. The District Forum held that there is no evidence to show that the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was made with the opposite parties. So it did not grant any relief in that regard. However, though no such relief was asked for by the complainant in the complaint, the District Forum directed the opposite parties to take proper steps for refund of the excise duty from the concerned department and also directed payment of costs of Rs. 100/-.

4. In this appeal, it is submitted that in the absence of any finding that the complainant has complied with all the formalities required for claiming refund of the excise duty as laid down under the Sales Policy Bulletin dated 11.3.93, the District Forum is not justified in giving a direction to the opposite parties to take steps for return of the excise duty. We see sufficient force in the aforesaid contention. The District Forum did not give any finding that the complainant has complied with all the formalities required for claiming refund of the excise duty. In the absence of any such finding, the District Forum ought not to have directed the opposite parties to take steps for refund of the excise duty. No such relief was sought even in the complaint. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the District Forum. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

Appeal allowed.