Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Rajiv Kumar Loomba

REQUEST for adjourned is declined. Liberty however, for Counsel for the Maruti Udyog Ltd. (Maruti Udyog) to file brief note of submissions in a day. Brief note of submissions has been filed by the Counsel for the Maruti Udyog.

BOTH these petitions by the Maruti Udyog, the manufacturer and Modern Automobiles, the dealer, are directed against common order of the State Commission Union Territory Chandigarh dismissing their appeals and upholding the order of the District Forum which in turn had allowed the complaint of the respondent No. 1 - complainant, Rajiv Kumar Loomba. Rajiv Kumar Loomba, a practising lawyer, filed a complaint with the District Forum alleging that he had been overcharged by the petitioners, being manufacturer and dealer of Maruti car-800, by Rs. 7,000/-. Revision Petition No. 523/1998 is filed by Maruti Udyog which is the manufacturer and Revision Petition No. 439/1998 by the Modern Automobiles who is dealer of the car manufactured by Maruti Udyog.

Loomba purchased a car from Modern Automobiles at Chandigarh on 15.4.1995 for Rs. 1,84,562.20. His complaint was that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- had been included in the price of the car as charges for catalytic converter which in fact was not installed in the car. Loomba, therefore, approached the Maruti Udyog for refund of Rs. 7,000/- as the catalytic converter had not been fitted in his car and yet he had been charged price for the same. Maruti Udyog refused to refund the price. It took the stand that it was on the direction of the Central Government that catalytic converter was ordered to be fitted in cars to be sold in four metropolitan cities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Subsequently, by another order of Central Government it was directed that the price of the car should be the same all over the country whether car is fitted with catalytic converter or not.

LOOMBA sent a notice on 8.8.1995 to Maruti Udyog demanding refund of Rs. 7,000/- along with interest. It was replied to by Maruti Udyog by its letter dated 21.8.1995 stating that the matter was being examined. Subsequently by letter dated 6.9.1995 Maruti Udyog informed LOOMBA that Government had advised the vehicle manufacturers to sell their vehicles with or without catalytic converter at the same price. It is not the case of the Maruti Udyog that cars were being sold on controlled price fixed by the Government. LOOMBA said that this statement that it was the Government which advised the manufacturer of cars to sell the same at the same price throughout the country was merely an after-thought and that in any case this advice was unjust, unfair and bad in law and could not be acted upon. District Forum observed that the complainant was right in contending that the manufacturer of the vehicle or the dealer had no legal right or authority to charge from a customer the price of a component/device which had not been fitted in the car. Admittedly, the car sold to LOOMBA was not fitted with a catalytic converter yet he was charged price of the same. It is not a plausible plea to advance that the cars sold all over India can have the same price as cars sold in the metropolitan cities fitted with catalytic converter. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed both the dealer and the manufacturer to refund Rs. 7,000/-to the complainant with 18% interest per annum from the date of payment of the price till the date of actual refund. Direction was also issued to discontinue such unfair trade practice. Against the order of the District Forum both the manufacturer and the dealer filed separate appeals. Both were dismissed and the order of the District Forum was upheld.

IT would appear that in some other matter in Chandigarh similar question arose where appeals were also taken to State Commission and met the same fate as in the present case. In the case of V.K. Kaura there was another issue where in State Commission held that the dealer was required to ensure before delivery of the car that it is fitted with heater, even if the complainant himself did not notice that shortcoming at the time of delivery. It held that the District Forum was right in holding that the dealer i.e. Pasco Automobiles was not entitled to recover Rs. 2,815/- being the cost of the heater from Kaura who was held being entitled to Rs. 2,815/-. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, Maruti Udyog, the manufacturer, and Modern Automobiles, the dealer have filed these two revision petitions. Same very grounds have been taken which were before the District Forum. It was submitted that increase of the price by Rs. 7,000/- was not only for the cost of catalytic converter but on account of other factors as well. In the written version filed by Maruti Udyog before the District Forum it was stated that increase in the price was not exclusively because of the cost of the catalytic converter. No details were given as to how the figure of Rs. 7,000/- was arrived at. The plea so raised was as vague as it could be and in our view rightly not taken notice of by the District Forum and so also by the State Commission. We cannot permit the Maruti Udyog to take different stand now before us and come up with the alleged details which were not before the District Forum. It was submitted that a uniform price was fixed for the entire country and there was no question of unfair trade practice being involved. When admittedly catalytic converter fitted in the car being sold in the metropolitan cities the customer in other cities could not be asked to pay the same price for the cars not so fitted with catalytic converter. Then to this argument it was added that consumer in any case has always an option not to purchase a car. This is certainly an unkind remark coming as it does from a Company in which Government of India has also a stake and which Company was having monopoly in the manufacture of car in this particular segment during the period in question. It was submitted by Maruti Udyog that its relation with the dealer - Modern Automobiles were of principal to principal. But then the fact remains that the price of the vehicle had been increased and charged by Maruti Udyog which it was not entitled.

ACCORDINGLY, the order directing the dealer, Modern Sutomobiles to refund the amount with interest is set aside and the Revision Petition No. 439/1998 of Modern Automobiles is allowed.

WE do not find any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order passed against Maruti Udyog in Revision Petition No. 523/1998 and do not find this is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 except that award of interest @ 18% p.a. appears to be on higher side which we reduce to 12% per annum. This revision petition with modification as to rate of interest is dismissed with cost which we assess at Rs. 2,500/- Ordered accordingly.