LexMARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. versus RAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1013 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. A ~--..i v. RAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1841 of 2003) JULY 15, 2009 B [MARKANDEY KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] ~ ,, .. .,. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Cons·umer charged for c a device which was not provided in the car sold to him - Held: The act of the manufacturer-seller was wholly arbitrary and would amount to unfair trade practice - Definition in s.2(1)(r) is an inclusive one and is not exhaustive of sub-clauses (i) . -·~ to (x) - Even if there is a direction of the Central Government D that same price should be charged for all cars whether fitted with catalytic converter or not, it will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: E Fixation of price - Judicial review of - Held: Fixation of ,I price can only be sustained if it is based on a reasonable classification - In the instant case, the classification is not reasonable, since a person whose vehicle does not have a catalytic converter should not be made to pay for the same. F State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 477 - held inapplicable. Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. vs. Sea Shore Apartments Owners' Welfare Association (2008) 3 SCC 21- G .-.J distinguished . Pallavi Refractories & Ors. vs. Singareni Collieries Co. LPtd. & Ors. (20005) 2 SCC 227, referred to. 1013 H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1841 of 2003. )'< ... From the Judgment & Order dated 26.7.2002 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New B Delhi in Revision Petition No. 523 of 1998. WITH C.A. No. 1842 of 2003. r • c Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Tulika Mukherjee, Swigin George and Bina Gupta for the Appellants. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER D Civil Appeal No. 1841/2003 f_ 1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 26.07.2002 in E Revision Petition No. 523i1998 filed by the appellant herein. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents F despite service of notice. 4. It appears that a complaint had been filed by the respondent No. 1 herein against the appellant herein before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh. The grievance of the complainant in the complaint was that although G a catalytic converter was not fixed in the Maruti car which was sold to him by the appellant, yet he has been charged a sum l ~ of Rs.7,000/- for the same. The complainant claimed that he should be refunded the sum of Rs.7,000/-. The claim of the complainant-respondent No. 1 was allowed by the District H Consumer Forum, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.12.1996. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. v. RAJIV KUMAR 1015 LOOMBA & ANR. Against the said order of the District Forum, the appellant filed A ~·'"I an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 18th March, 1998. Thereafter the appellant preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has been dismissed by the B impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave. r "t 5. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to a policy decision dated 22.3.1995. of the Central Government, which is annexed as c Annexure/P-1 to this appeal. By the said decision the Central Government had directed that all 4 wheeler petrol vehicles sold in the cities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras shall be fitted with a catalytic converter. However, there was no mandatory requirement for a catalytic converter in such vehicles D ¥_..::,.- at the relevant time in respect of other cities in India. 6. The respondent No. 1, at the relevant time lived in Charidigarh. Hence, he alleged that he was under no legal obligation to get fitted a catalytic converter in his Maruti car nor did he actually get the same fitted in his car purchased from E the appellant. Th1,.1s, he should not have been charged an extra ~ Rs. 7,000/- for 11.($/,Maruti car as a person living in the four Metropolitan Citie~ abovementioned alone have to have a catalytic converter in his car. 7.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.