A dealer cannot be held liable for deficiency of service when proper procedures for obtaining VAT exemption are not followed by the buyer.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant / 1st opposite party under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 23.10.2013 in C.C. No. 107/2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Coimbatore.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to herein as they stood arrayed before the District Forum.

3. The 1st opposite party who suffered an order whereby the 1st opposite party was directed to refund a sum of Rs.68,470 collected from the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of payment; (b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service, (c) to pay a sum of Rs.1,000 towards cost of the proceedings.

4. The case of the complainant is that the first opposite party (herein after called the seller) and the second opposite party (herein after called person claiming sales tax exemption). The complainant has alleged that the first opposite party has committed deficiency in service by failing to provide sales tax exemption amount Rs.68,470 though the complainant is entitled to the exemption being employed in the Central Reserve Police Force and he presently stationed at Coimbatore. According the complainant, as an employee he is entitled to tax benefits viz., exemption from Value Added Tax for the commodities purchased by him through the Police Canteen notified by the Government. During August 2011, he intended to purchase a TATA Visa car by availing tax benefits. Therefore he placed a request through M/s Central Police Canteen, Thoppampatti who generated a demand note dated 10.8.2011 on behalf of the complainant and forwarded the same to the seller for processing and delivery of the car. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000 as booking advance on 10.8.2011 and also paid a balance of Rs.2,00,000 on 12.8.2011, Rs.1,50,000 on 12.8.2011 and also paid Rs.1,00,000 on 13.8.2011, Rs.5,000 on 16.8.2011. Thus entire amount of vehicle is 4,80,000 stood paid on 16.8.2011. Thereafter on 18.8.2011, the new car was delivered to him after completion of registration formalities etc., however on 22.8.2011, the opposite party requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.68,470 stating that it would be reimbursed to him by the Department of Commercial Tax. Believing the above request, the complainant remitted the above said amount on 22.8.2011. As the amount was not returned the complainant caused a legal notice to the opposite parties. As per the communication of the Commercial Tax official dated 3.9.2012, the complainant appeared before him 11.9.2012 and produced the relevant documents; and the seller also appeared and explained his version. The information supplied to the complainant under Rights to Information Act reveals that the seller has not initiated any steps to get the tax benefits in favour of the complainant from to commercial tax officer, but has collected the difference in amount subsequently thereby caused loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the first opposite party is liable to refund Rs.68,470 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony besides cost of the proceedings.

5. The first opposite party filed a written version contending that the complainant has not followed all the procedures explained by the seller and there is no deficiency in service on his part. It is true that the complainant is an employee of the Reserve Police and intended to purchase a car and he produced a letter to the opposite party dated 10.8.2011 signed by the Commandant of the CRPF. However the complainant did not produce the purchase order from his Central Police Canteen