Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President &
Mrs. Saroj Rajwade, Member
MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED—Appellant
versus
SH. JOGINDER NATH BHATIA & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 11/JBP of 1997—Decided on 19.8.1999
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(G), 2(1)(R) - SALE OF GOODS ACT - UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - EXCESS PRICE CHARGED - TIME OF ESSENCE OF CONTRACT - MANUFACTURE OF CAR SUSPENDED - ADVERSE INFERENCE - REFUND OF EXCESS PRICE WITH INTEREST AND COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant, a physically handicapped person, booked a Maruti Automatic Transmission Car on 15.11.1990 and deposited Rs. 10,000/- as a demand draft. The authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL), respondent No. 2, assured delivery within three months. The complainant deposited the full amount of Rs. 74,881.88 paise on 1.1.1991. MUL directed the dealer to collect an additional Rs. 77,131.85 paise due to a possible increase in excise duty and other taxes. The dealer asked the complainant to deposit his share of Rs. 36,500/- and promised delivery by the end of March 1991. The complainant deposited the amount on 20.3.1991. However, the dealer did not send the draft to MUL. MUL suspended the production of the car due to temporary restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India on essential components. The complainant was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 44,715/- for the increased price and excise duty. The complainant deposited Rs. 35,000/- on 19.9.1991 and the car was delivered on 1.11.1991. The complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum held that the letter dated 4.3.1991 sent by MUL to the dealer indicated that the car was ready for dispatch upon deposit of the balance amount. The dealer collected the balance amount from the complainant on 20.3.1991, but the car was not delivered. The defense that production was suspended due to non-availability of imported components was not established as MUL could not demonstrate which components caused the suspension. The production record of the cars was not produced. The District Forum concluded that the late delivery and the charge of excess price were cases of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was maintainable since the complainant had already approached the MRTP Commission? 2. Whether the time was the essence of the contract and whether MUL could charge the excess price on the date of sale? 3. Whether the defense that the manufacturing of the car was suspended was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The complaint was maintainable as the MRTP Commission had dismissed the complaint and the order of remand made by the National Commission was not challenged. 2. The time was the essence of the contract as the letter dated 4.3.1991 indicated that the car was ready for dispatch upon deposit of the balance amount. MUL could not charge the excess price on the date of sale. 3. The defense that the manufacturing of the car was suspended was not valid as MUL could not demonstrate which components caused the suspension and the production record of the cars was not produced.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. The District Forum was directed to convey a copy of the order to the parties.
Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—The appellant-Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL) has filed this appeal against the order dated 20th March, 1997 passed in case No. 24/91 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur (for short the ‘District Forum’).
2. Material facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus : The complainant-respondent No. 1 is a physically handicapped person who booked on 15.11.1990 a Maruti Automatic Transmission Car, Model HC-TRA by deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by Demand Draft in the name of MUL with the authorised dealer of MUL the respondent No. 2. A priority No. 5401-H-02474 dated 15.11.1990 was allotted to respondent No. 1. The price of the car on the date of allotment was Rs. 84,881.88 paise. The respondent No. 2 assured the delivery within a period of three months on deposit of the full amount. The respondent No. 2 on 28.12.1990 sent a telephonic message to the respondent No. 1 to deposit the balance of Rs. 74,881.88 pais towards the full price of maruti automatic transmission car and assured the delivery within 3 to 4 weeks. The respondent No. 1 deposited Rs. 74,881.88 paise on 1.1.1991 by Bank Draft drawn in the name of MUL with the respondent No. 2. MUL vide their letter dated 4.3.1991 directed the respondent No. 2 to collect Rs. 77,131.85 paise from the respondent No. 1 and another handicapped person, Mr. R.R. Tanwani as there was likelihood of increase in excise duty and other taxes. The respondent No. 2 on 20.3.1991 asked the respondent No. 1 to deposit his share of Rs. 36,500/- and told that the vehicle would be delivered by the end of March, 1991. This amount was also deposited by Bank Draft on 20.3.1991 drawn in the name of MUL with the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 did not send this draft to MUL as was evident from the correspondence between the MUL and the respondent No. 2. A communication was sent that MUL has suspended the production of Maruti Handicapped Controlled Car on account of certain temporary restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to components essential for the manufacture. According to MUL and respondent No. 2 the manufacture of such cars remained suspended from March, 1991 to October, 1991. Though Maruti Automatic Transmission Cars of different models were manufactured in May, 1991 of which the components were available. The MUL and respondent No. 2 alleged that the model as per allotment order of respondent No. 1 was manufactured in October, 1991 and dispatched on 15.10.1991 as per the terms and conditions of sale. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 12.9.1991 was asked to deposit the difference of the price increased including excise duty of Rs. 44,715/- so the delivery of the car be made. The respondent No. 1 having no alternative had to deposit Rs. 35,000/- on 19.9.1991 and interest of Rs. 9,715.09 paise which accrued on the amount already deposited and was payable by the MUL and respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 was adjusted. The delivery of the car was made on 1.11.1991, where an additional demand of Rs. 1,500/- was also made by the respondent No. 2 which was also paid. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in not making the delivery of the car in March, 1991 as a consequence of this, the respondent No. 1 had to make the additional payment of excess price of Rs. 44,715/- of which he claimed refund with interest.
3. A complaint Case No. 7(14873)—TCH/92 was also filed before the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTP Commission). The opposite parties that is the respondent No. 2 and the MUL resisted the complaint on various grounds before the District Forum. The District Forum vide order dated 5.10.1993 dismissed the complaint holding that when the complaint has already been filed before the MRTP Commission, the complainant cannot invoke Consumer Jurisdiction simultaneously. Aggrieved of this order, the complainant filed the Appeal No. 69/92 before this Commission
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
