LexRAVINDER RAJ versus M/S. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011r:z S.C.R. 756 ' >~ RAVINDER RAJ v. MIS. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10364 of 2006) FEBRUARY 10, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Sale of Goods Act, 1930- s.64-A (1)(a) - Enhancement of excise duty prior to delivery of the vehicle' - Liability to pay C extra price - Customer booked a car with the manufacturer - Customer was asked to complete the modalities for delivery of the car - Indication in the proforma invoice that the price prevailing at the time of billing would be applicable - Billing of the car done a year later - Meanwhile, increase in excise D duty resulting in price hike - Deposit of the excess amount by customer under protest - Plea of the customer that since he was not responsible for the delay in the delivery of the vehicle, he was not liable to bear the increase the price - Held: In terms of s. 64-A (1 )(a), it is the liability of the .customer E to pay the extra price when the excise duty had been enhanced prior to the delivery of the vehicle - On facts, no evidence to show that there was any deliberate intention on the part of the manufacturer and the dealer to delay the delivery of the vehicle - Thus, the order passed by the F National Commission that the increase in price by way of additional taxes is to be borne by the customer and not by the manufacturer, upheld. Omprakash vs. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. 1994 (3) SCC 504; Mohinder Pratap G Dass vs. Modem Automobiles and Anr. 1995 (3) SCC 581 - distinguished. H 756 RAVINDER RAJ v. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. 757 LTD. & ANR. Case law reference: 1994 (3) sec 504 1995 (3) sec 581 Distinguished. Distinguished. Para 12 Para 12 A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. B 10364 of 2006. · From the Judgment & Order dated 19.07.2005 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1485 of 2005. WITH SLP (C) No. 9739-9740 of 2009. Petitioner-In-Person. Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Sapna Sinha, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER 1. 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 c D E by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at F 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.297 4 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, G 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 deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial/ advance booking payment. On 15th July, 1988, the respondent H 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R. A 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 B 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. c 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 D protest on 16th February, 1989. 4. The official billing in respect of the car was done on 5th April, 1989. E 5. The petitioner has contended that the delay in delivery of the vehicle to him by the 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. F The petitioner, therefore, applied to the District Consumer Forum for a direction upon the respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.