NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

(from the order dated 24.2.05 in Appeal No.48/94 of the State Commission, Delhi)

Maruti Udyog Ltd.                                               … Petitioner

Ravinder Raj & Anr.                                            … Respondents

(from the order dated 24.2.05 in Appeal No.48/94 of the State Commission, Delhi)

M/s.Competent Automobile Co. Ltd.                … Petitioner

Ravinder Raj & Anr.                                            … Respondents

                   HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                   HON’BLE  MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI  RAO,  MEMBER

For the Petitioner                   :         Mr.K.P.S. Rao, Advocate

For Respondent No.1  :         In person

Dated :  7^th August 2008

          Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and order dated 24.2.2005 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.48/94, the original opp. parties, namely, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and M/s.Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. have preferred these Revision Petitions. 

          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Mr.Ravinder Raj, booked a Maruti Car with the dealer, M/s.Competent Motors, by paying an initial booking amount of Rs.78,351/-.  In April 1989, he was informed about the maturity of allotment number.  On being called upon for making the balance payment, he paid the remaining amount on 5.4.1989.  But, the car was delivered to him on 13.4.1989.  During the intervening period, the price of the vehicle escalated by Rs.6,000/- and odd and he had to pay an extra amount of Rs.7000/- for taking the delivery of the car. 

          The complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum by filing Complaint No.1133/1990 for refund of the amount paid in excess of the amount paid against the Proforma invoice.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint and declined the refund of extra amount paid by the complainant on the basis of  “Proforma Invoice” which stipulates that the price prevailing at the time of billing shall be applicable.

          Against that order, Appeal was filed before the State Commission.

Relying upon the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Mohinder Pratap Dass Vs. Modern Automobiles & Anr. (1995) 3 SCC 581, the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the complainant and directed the respondents to refund extra amount received by them towards the price of the car with a further sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.

          Hence, these Revision Petitions.

          On 8.7.2005, when Revision Petition No.1533/2005 came up for hearing before this Commission, it was dismissed by observing as under :

“Considering the small amount involved in this matter, we do not think that this is a fit case for interference.  Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.  However, this would not be precedent for other cases.”

          Against that order, SLP was filed by the petitioner, M/s.Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd.  The complainant also filed SLP No.10364/2006 before the Apex Court on the ground that the amount should be refunded with interest and compensation.  Meantime, the petitioner also filed Misc. Application No.599/2006 before this Commission for setting aside the said order on the ground that Revision Petition No.1533/2005 filed by the manufacturer, M/s.Maruti Udyog Ltd., is pending. 

Today, we have heard both the Revision Petitions together. 

          At the time of hearing of these Revision Petitions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd. submitted that the orders passed by the State Commission directing the refund of the amount is on the face of it erroneous because the State Commission has not considered the fact as to why there was delay in delivering the vehicle and the fact that the complainant had given a choice for the colour of the car.  It is also contended that in the Proforma Invoice dated 16.2.1989, it has been specifically stated as under :

“Registration & Road Tax charges shall be charged extra as applicable.  Colour choice available WHITE/ CREAM/ B.BLUE/ S.GREEN.  Price prevailing at the time of billing shall be applicable.  For factory built heater, kindly add Rs.767/-.”

          Thereafter, in the receipt given by the dealer it has been specifically mentioned that the price prevailing on the date of invoice will apply.  Thereafter, there is the Allotment Letter wherein it has also been mentioned that colour choice given by the complainant was CREAM.  He further relied upon the undertaking dated 16.2.1989 given by the complainant, which reads as under :

                                      “TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

M/s.Competent Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. has explained to me that the delivery of Maruti 800 against advance payment made by me on 16.2.89 would be delayed and the likely date of delivery of vehicle to me is March, 1989.  The delivery date indicated above is subject to normal production of MUL and availability of vehicles of the colour choice as planned.

I have also noted the interest @ 12% p.a. is payable to me on the advance payment beyond 10 days for the period my payment is withheld.

I am aware that the price of the vehicle would be the one which is prevailing on the date of delivery of the vehicle which is a basic term accepted by me.”

          It is his contention that there was increase in Excise Duty and on that basis an additional amount was recovered from the complainant.

          As against this, the complainant, who is appearing in person, submitted that the dealer adopted malpractice by intentionally delaying the delivery of the vehicle.  For this purpose, he submitted that some customers, who booked the vehicle in February 1989 were given delivery of the vehicle in the same month and, therefore, the dealer adopted unfair trade practice in preferring some customers.  He further submitted that such malpractices were reported in the newspapers also.

FINDINGS :

          For verifying whether the dealer has adopted any malpractice, we directed the petitioner, namely, Maruti Udyog Ltd. to file necessary affidavit in support of the contention that because of the increase in Excise Duty, additional amount of Rs.6,000/- was recovered from the complainant.   For this purpose, one Mr.S. Ravi Aiyar, Company Secretary & Chief Legal officer, Maruti Udyog Ltd. filed an affidavit stating that after the complainant booked the vehicle on 16.2.1989 with the dealer, the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd. released the vehicle from the factory on 30.3.1989 vide Invoice No.520586 with Chasis No.278370 and Engine No.382989.

          The District Forum has specifically arrived at the conclusion that the price in these cases were revised consequent to the increase in the Central Excise Duty and this increase in the price was retained neither by Maruti Udyog Ltd. nor by the dealer but the same was deposited with the governmental authorities. 

In our view, the State Commission has ignored this aspect and, therefore, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be justified on this aspect.

          Apart from this, the complainant has given an undertaking as quoted above and that undertaking is binding on him.  At the time of hearing of these Revision Petitions, by order dated 28.7.2008, the complainant was asked to file affidavit to the effect whether the said undertaking is correct or not but he avoided to file such affidavit denying its veracity.

          Further, the District Forum has arrived at the conclusion that the delay in delivering the vehicle was because the complainant had a choice of colour for the car and the cars, which were delivered to the other customers were not of CREAM colour, which was the colour choice given by the complainant.

          Considering these facts, in our view, it is not necessary to refer to the various decisions sought to be relied upon by the complainant, who is appearing in person. 

In the result, impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside and the order passed by the District Forum is confirmed.  The Revision Petition filed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the Misc. Application filed by M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. are allowed.    There shall be no order as to costs.