The court emphasized the need for a pragmatic view of the consumer's rights and the strict construction of the limitation provision in favor of the consumer when the supplier causes a delay in the settlement of the consumer's claim.

ORDER

N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial)—M/s. Saya Automobiles Ltd., A-21/21, GT Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi-110033 the Appellant/OP1 has filed the present appeal against orders dated 13.3.2012 passed by the learned District Forum (North-West) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088. Vide impugned orders learned District Forum passed the following directions against the Appellant/OP1:

“The complaint against OP2/OP3 is dismissed.”

2. Facts which are necessary for adjudicating upon the appeal and not in dispute are that the respondent No. 1/complainant Sh. Anil Sharma purchased a Maruti Omni Ambulance from the Appellant/OP1 vide sale letter/invoice dated 15.10.1996. An amount of Rs. 1,52,000 was paid to the Appellant/OP1. The deal for the purchase of vehicle was made with an understanding that the respondent No. 1/complainant Sh. Anil Sharma and would get 25% rebate on excise duty as per Maruti Sales Policy Bulletin dated 24.8.1996. Complainant Sh. Anil Sharma was running a nursing home under the name Capital Nursing Home and Hospital at C-3/7A, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110007. The vehicle was delivered seven months after the booking and on a further payment of Rs. 56,405 by respondent No. 1/complainant. Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon and Excise Department, Govt. Of Haryana were arraigned as OP2 and OP3 respectively in the complaint before the learned District Forum. Application for rebate of excise duty was forwarded by the Appellant/dealer to MUL Gurgaon, for further consideration by Excise Department, Government of Haryana. Assistant Commissioner (Excise) rejected the application on the grounds that the same was barred by time. As per central Government’s notification a manufacturer is required to file claim for refund (of excise duty) within 3 months of the clearance of the motor vehicle from the factory. As per policy framed by MUL Gurgaon the requisite documents must reach MUL Gurgaon within 45 days of issuance of MUL invoice to the dealer. A customer is required to furnish the documents to the dealer within 60 days from the date of dealer’s invoice.

3. In the present case, as per defence raised by MUL Gurgaon OP2, it received documents for seeking refund only on 6.10.1998. These were received vide letter dated 24.9.1998 sent by the complainant.

4. Let us now have a look at the chain of events that caused delay in presentation of the case before the Excise Authorities. Initially the complainant had handed over his nursing home registration certificate to Appellant/OP1 at the time of the purchase of the vehicle. Respondent No. 1/complainant approached Appellant/OP1 in January 1997 and inquired about the excise rebate. He was informed that the documents stood submitted to the Manager, MUL, Gurgaon. Complainant was provided with copy of the letter dated 22.10.1966 in this behalf. He was asked to enquire after 15 days. On an inquiry after 15 days, respondent No. 1/complainant was informed that the cheque towards refund of excise duty had not been received. After making few more inquiries from Appellant/OP1, respondent No. 1/complainant visited the office of Manager (Excise Cell), MUL, Gurgaon. Respondent No. 1/complainant was informed that the papers received from Appellant/OP1 had been sent back in January 1997. Papers had been sent back for the reason that the same were not notarised. Copy of the said letter was given to the respondent No. 1/ complainant. Respondent No. 1/complainant again took-up the matter with Appellant/OP1. Now, Appellant/OP1 admitted the receipt of such papers from MUL, Gurgaon (OP2) and stated that due to some clerical error papers could not be re-submitted to MUL, Gurgaon (OP2). Appellant/OP1 asked for the documents in original. The same were given by respondent No. 1/complainant on 22.4.1997. On an inquiry respondent No. 1/ complainant was informed that the papers had been submitted to MUL, Gurgaon on 29.4.1997. Respondent No. 1/complainant submitted a letter dated 8.1.1998. To his shock he was informed that the pa