Assistant Excise Commissioner’s appeal dismissed

The complaint was brought to the Forum by one Rajesh Bhatti, who had purchased a Maruti car to be used as a taxi for which he was entitled to excise rebate.

Rebate was, however, not given to him and he approached the Forum against Maruti Udyog. Later when he came to know that Assistant Commissioner, Excise, was responsible for rebate, he also impleaded as party.

The respondent, in its reply, maintained that Bhatti was not a consumer because he had purchased the taxi for commercial use. The Commission, however, set aside this plea on the grounds that the complainant had bought the taxi to earn his livelihood.

Parking contractor held liable for stolen car
In a interesting judgment here, a parking lot contractor was directed to compensate the complainant whose car was stolen from his parking lot in Manimajra. Dismissing the appeal of the contractor against the order of District Forum which had required him to pay up for the loss, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that he is liable in this regard and directed him to pay Rs one lakh and another Rs 300 as costs.

The appeal was attempted by Suresh Kumar, contractor of the parking stand and Assistant Commissioner, Municipal Corporation (also held guilty by the Forum) against the May 5 order of District Forum.

The complainant G. S. Chawla had stated that his car was stolen while he had parked it in a stand outside a cinema hall for about three hours. He stated that he had paid Rs 10 as parking charges and the car had thus been entrusted to the contractor who owned the stand.

The Commission bench held that since the money for parking was collected by the contractor alone, he alone was responsible for failure in ensuring safe custody of the vehicle. The Commission allowed the appeal of Municipal Corporation but directed the contractor to make amends for the loss of complainant’s vehicle.