1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(Civil) No(s).10364/2006
RAVINDER RAJ Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. LTD.&ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 9739-9740 of 2009
O R D E R
Two Special Leave Petitions, being SLP(C)
Nos. 10364 of 2006 and 9739-9740 of 2009, have
been filed against the judgment and order dated
19th July, 2005, passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in
Revision Petition No.1485 of 2005 and the order
dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the said
Commission in Revision Petition No.2974 of 2005
filed by the respondent No.1, Maruti Udyog
Limited and also M.A.No.599 of 2006 in Revision
Petition 1533 of 2005 filed by the respondent
No.2, namely, Competent Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd., the
dealer.
2. The petitioner, Mr. Ravinder Raj, who is
appearing in person, applied to Maruti Udyog
Ltd.in 1985-1986 for booking a Maruti Car-800 and
2
deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial/advance
booking payment. On 15th July, 1988, the
respondent No.2 informed the petitioner by letter
of even date that his Maruti Car Allotment
No.0802-N-04051 had matured for delivery and
requested the petitioner to make payment of the
full amount of the price of the car for delivery
of the vehicle after completing the necessary
formalities. Pursuant to the above letter, the
petitioner on 16th February, 1989, paid a total
amount of Rs.78,351.05 which covered the price of
the vehicle, insurance charges and other minor
charges, including registration charges. There
is no denial that the petitioner had opted for a
cream colour vehicle.
3. On 1st March, 1989, there was an increase
in the excise duty payable, causing a price hike
of about Rs.6710.61. On 18th March, 1989, the
petitioner received a letter from the respondent
No.2 to deposit the excess amount payable as
excise duty, and, accordingly, the petitioner did
so under protest on 16th February, 1989.
4. The official billing in respect of the car
was done on 5th April, 1989.
5. The petitioner has contended that the
delay in delivery of the vehicle to him by the
3
respondents was not occasioned by any failure or
negligence on his part and the liability to pay
the increased amount on account of increase in
excise duty, was not that of the petitioner, but
of the respondents concerned. The petitioner,
therefore, applied to the District Consumer Forum
for a direction upon the respondents to bear the
increase in excise duty resulting in increase in
the price. Such a prayer was rejected by the
District Consumer Forum. The petitioner then
went to the State Forum which allowed the
petitioner's claim. Against the said order,
the respondents went before the National
Commission, which reversed the order passed by
the State Forum. It is against the said order
that the petitioner has come to this Court by way
of this Special Leave Petition.
6. As indicated hereinabove, the main ground
urged by the petitioner is that since he was not
responsible for the delay in the delivery of the
vehicle, he should not be made to bear the
increase in the price, particularly, when from
the documents, as indicated by him, the vehicle
of the colour chosen by him was available with
the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that
the order of the National Forum was erroneous and
4
was liable to be set aside.
7. Appearing for the dealer, M/s.Competent
Motors Co.Pvt.Ltd., Ms. Sapna Sinha, learned
advocate pointed out that even from the receipt
of the amount paid by the petitioner on 16th
February, 1989, it will be clear that the amount
paid was subject to the price prevailing on the
date of the invoice. According to learned
counsel, since the bill was dated 5th of April,
1989, it was the petitioner who was required to
bear the increase in price on account of the
increase in excise duty. Furthermore, she
reiterated that the colour which the petitioner
had wanted was not available at that point of
time, although, from the documents it would
appear that the same was available. According
to her, the said documents only indicated that
these were the colours in which the cars were
being manufactured and did not really indicate
the fact that such a colour was available on a
particular date.
8. According to her, there was no negligence
on the part of the dealer since having received
intimation about the readiness of the vehicle,
the respondent No.2 had immediately informed the
petitioner, but unfortunately, in the meantime,
5
the price had risen. According to the learned
counsel, the respondent No.2 could not,
therefore, be made liable for the increase in the
price.
9. Mr. Dayal, appearing for the the Maurti
Udyog Limited, while adopting the submissions
made by Ms. Sinha, also added that having regard
to Section 64 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930,
the burden of any increase in the price by way of
additional taxes would have to be borne by the
customer and not by the manufacturer. He also
reiterated that since there was no negligence on
the part of the manufacturer in making the
vehicle available to the petitioner and since no
mala fide intention had been proved, the
petitioner would have to bear the increase in the
prices.
10. Having considered the submissions made, we
may refer to the letter of 15th July, 1988, which
had been written on behalf of the respondent No.2
to the petitioner indicating that the
petitioner's allotment No. had matured for
delivery. In the second paragraph of the letter,
the respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to
complete the modalities for effecting delivery of
the car against the allotment number. It was
6
categorically indicated that on receiving
payment, delivery would be effected in the
sequence of priority. Coupled with the above is
the proforma invoice dated 15th July, 1988, where
it was further indicated that the price
prevailing at the time of billing would be
applicable, despite the fact that the details of
the price of the vehicle were set out in the said
invoice.
11. As indicated hereinabove, even in the
receipt given to the petitioner for payment of
the amount in the proforma invoice, it had been
indicated that the prices prevailing on the date
of billing would apply.
12. In this case, the billing was done on 5th
of April, 2009. In the absence of any evidence
of any deliberate intention on the part of the
respondents to delay delivery of the vehicle, we
are unable to agree with the petitioner that the
increase in price has to be borne by the
respondents. The petitioner had relied on two
decisions of this Court in the case of Omprakash
Vs. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries
Corpn. Ltd., 1994(3)SCC 504 and Mohinder Pratap
Dass Vs Modern Automobiles and Anr. 1995(3)SCC
581, on the same issue. The said two decisions
7
in our view are not applicable to the facts of
this case, on account of the fact that in the
said two matters patent deficiency in the service
had been found by the Court and it was also
pointed out that there was no satisfactory
explanation for the delay in delivery of the
goods to the consumers, which is not the case as
far as this particular matter is concerned.
13. Furthermore, having regard to the
provisions of Section 46A(1)(b) of the Sale of
Goods Act, 1930, it is the liability of the
petitioner to pay the extra price when the excise
duty had been enhanced prior to the delivery of
the vehicle.
14. In such circumstances, the Special Leave
Petition fails and is dismissed.
15. Consequently, in view of this order, the
other Special Leave Petition in which interest
on the amount claimed has been prayed for, does
not survive and is also dismissed.
16. There will, however, be no orders as to
costs in both the matters.
...................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
8
...................J.
(CYRIAC JOSEPH)
New Delhi,
February 10, 2011.
