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  Maruti  

Udyog  Limited,  while  adopting  the  submissions  

made by Ms. Sinha, also added that having regard  

to Section 64A 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, 1989.  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 64A(1)(a) 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.