RAVINDER RAJversusM/S. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR.

                          [2011r:z S.C.R. 756
                                  '   >~




A                           RAVINDER RAJ
                                           v.
       MIS. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. LTD. & ANR.
        (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10364 of 2006)

                         FEBRUARY 10, 2011
B
         [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:                         A
    1994 (3) sec 504          Distinguished.        Para 12
    1995 (3) sec 581          Distinguished.        Para 12
    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.
                                                                  c
                             WITH
SLP (C) No. 9739-9740 of 2009.

    Petitioner-In-Person.
                                                                  D
    Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Sapna Sinha, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal for the Respondent.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered
                            ORDER                                 E

      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
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.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,       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 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
G 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.

H         6. As indicated hereinabove, the main ground urged by the
RAVINDER RAJ v. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. 759
                 LTD. & ANR.
petitioner is that since he was not responsible for the delay in    A
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 was liable to         B
be set aside.

     7. Appearing for the dealer, Mis.Competent Motors
Co.Pvt.Ltd., Ms. Sapna Sinha, learned advocate pointed out
that even from the receipt of the amount paid by the petitioner     C
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    D
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       E
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       F
informed the petitioner, but unfortunately, in the meantime, 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,      G
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
~ot by the manufacturer. He also reiterated that since there was    H
    760     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 2 S.C.R.

A 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
8
  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
C the petitioner to complete the modalities for effecting delivery
  of the car against the allotment number. It was 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
D 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,
E 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
F 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
G Automobiles and Anr. 1995(3)SCC 581, on the same issue.
    The said two decisions 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
H
- RAVINDER RAJ v. COMPETENT MOTORS CO. PVT. 761
                   LTD. & ANR.
 explanation for the delay in delivery of the goods to the           A
 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    8
 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.
                                                                     c
     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 110 orders as to costs in both
 the matters.

 N.J.                        Special Leave Petition dismissed.