Maruti Udyog Limited vs KODAILKANAL TOWNSHIP

-BOTH the above titled Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a single order as they arise out of the same order passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 141 of 1991 arising out of an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Complaint case No. 22/91. The appeal before the State Commission was filed jointly by the Revision Petitioners of Revision Petition Nos. 50and 61 of 1992. While referring to the parties, we are referring to the parties of Revision Petition No. 50.

THE nets of the case are that the Complainant Kodailkanal Township. Respondent No. 1 (herein) placed an order with Respondent No. 2 (herein) Anamalais Bus Transport Limited which is a distributor of Maruti Cars, manufactured by the Revision Petitioner (herein) in accordance with the Rate Contract entered into between the Director General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (Revision Petitioner). THE Distributor agreed to deliver the vehicle within three to five weeks from the time of payment of full amount. A Demand Draft for Rs. 1,33,793/- was issued by the complainant to the Distributor on 28.5.1990 and another Draft for Rs. 5,085/- on 30.5.1990. THE delivery was, however, effected on 12th March, 1991 and at that time an additional sum of Rs. 41,431.61 was demanded and was paid by the complainant under protest. THE increase in price had taken place after 7.7.1990. THE complainant''s case further was that he was not liable to pay the increased price on account of delay in the supply of Maruti Gypsy car at the price in accordance with the Rate Contract entered into and on account of delay the old Jeep with the complainant had to be repaired foruse and thus an additional expenditure of Rs. 21,000/- was incurred by the complainant. THE complainant thus claimed Rs. 62,431.61. The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party i.e. the Manufacturer and the Distributor. They filed separate counter statements. Their contention was that the date of delivery mentioned in the invoice was only approximate and tentative and the time was not the essence of the contract. There was no firm commitment that the delivery would be effected on or before 7.7.1990. The delay was due to the closure of factory on account of annual maintenance. As per the terms of the contract the price of the vehicle was to be the one prevailing on the date of delivery. In the instant case the price of the vehicle was increased on 22nd August, 1990 on account of the increase in Central Excise Duty from 40% to 50% ad valorem and again on 20.12.1990 due to increase in Import Duty on steel and components. It was, therefore, pleaded that they were not liable to refund of Rs. 41,431.61 collected at the time of delivery nor they were liable to reimburse the complainant for the cost of repairs of the old jeep. It was further contended on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the relief claimed by the claimant did not fall within the ambit of Section 14(a) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was not maintainable.

The District Forum rejected the contention of the Opposite Parties i.e. the Manufacturers and the Distributor and directed them to refund jointly or severally the sum of Rs. 41,431.61 collected in excess of the price agreed upon. It dismissed the claim of the complainant in other respect.

AGGRIEVED with that order, the Opposite Parties preferred a joint appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. In the present case, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case as we are of the opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short Act). Complaint has defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act is as follows: "Complaint" means any allegation in writing made by complainant that - (i) as a result of any Unfair Trade Practice adopted by any trader the complainant has suffered loss or damage; (ii) the goods mentioned in the complaint suffer from one or more defects; (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;"

At the most the present complaint can be said to have been filed under Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (c). It is not the case of the complainant that the price of the Maruti Car has been fixed by or under any law. Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 also do not apply. Therefore, even if the dealer has charged allegedly excess price the complaint is not maintainable under the Act. We need not dilate upon this point as this question has already been settled by this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3 of 1990 titled The Manager, Milk Chilling Centre v. Mahaboobnagar Citizen Council, I (1991) CPJ 219 (NC). In that case the complainant had alleged that action taken by the Milk Chilling Center at Mahaboob Nagar for levying the transport charges at 15 paise per sachet was in violation of instructions issued by the Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd. This Commission remarked: "As per the definition of the expression ''complaint'' incorporated in Clause (c) of Section 2(1) of the Act, a complaint regarding the price at which an article has been sold can be maintained under the Act only if ''a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods.'' No reference has been made by the State Commission to any law in force in the State of Andhra Pradesh fixing the price at which the different varieties or milk are to be sold, nor has our attention been drawn to any provision of law in force in Andhra Pradesh fixing the price of different varieties of milk. Admittedly, there was no mention of the price on the sachets containing the milk sold to the customers in Mahaboobnagar. The State Commission itself has mentioned that this was so because of the exemption granted from the Operation of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. When there has not been any fixing of the price of any article by law nor a display of the price on the package containing the goods or on the goods themselves, the Act does not contemplate any complaint being instituted in respect of the price charged for the article on the ground that the price charged for the article is excessive. In the absence of any law requiring an article to be sold at or below a particular price fixed thereunder and when there is no declaration of price on the packet containing the goods or on the goods themselves, the Act does not contemplate that a Redressal Forum constituted under its provisions should undertake an investigation of the reasonableness of the price fixation made by a manufacturer, producer or dealer."

The above observations clearly apply to the present case.

ALTER quoting Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (c) referred to above, the State Commission has remarked: "It is clear that a complaint made before any of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act can be based on the allegation that a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by under any law for the time being in force. When a complaint is maintainable on the allegation of collection of excess price, it follows that the Forum must be entitled to grant relief in respect thereof. This is a clear case where according to the complainant the excess price has been unauthorisedly collected by the Opposite Parties in violation of the terms Exhibit A-2. Rate Contract entered into between the Director General of Supplies and Disposal and Second Opposite Party, manufacturer on the basis of which the complainant has purchased this vehicle and hence the complaint is maintainable."

The Rate Contract entered into between Director General Supplies & Disposal and the Manufacturer does not take the shape of law. Rate Contract Price is a contractual and not a Statutory price. If the dealer or manufacturer was charging higher price, the complainant had the option to refuse to take the delivery of the article. In fact when the complainant had complained to the manufacturer about the delay in the supply of the Gypsy Car the latter had informed the former vide letter dated 19th November, 1990 that his order was at serial No. 102 of the pending orders and so he would get the vehicle only after 101 earlier registrants were delivered vehicles. He was also informed that he had the option to cancel the order and get back his money with interest. Before the delivery was effected to the complainant he was informed vide letter dated 12.2.1991 to further deposit Rs. 41,431.61. Even at that time the complainant could have refused to pay that additional amount. After making the payment in these circumstances, the complainant cannot make a complaint under the Act in the light of the discussions made above. If the manufacturer/dealer has charged a higher price for the vehicle in violation of the rate contract, that would not constitute a ground for preferring a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act since there has not been any fixation of the price by any law. Hence, he cannot be granted any relief by any of the Forums constituted under the Act. Accordingly, we hold that in the present case both the District Forum and State Commission exceeded their jurisdiction in giving relief to the complain-ant. Hence we accept both the Revision Petitions and set aside the impugned orders of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission. We do not make any order regarding costs in both the Revision Petitions. Petitions allowed.