MITRA AGENCIES vs KATARI PANAKALA RAO

THE complainant i.e. the respondent herein booked for a Maruthi Car 800 on 7-11-1986 and deposited an advance of Rs. 10,000/- and was given allotment number 2601/N/00642/86. On 2-6-1989 the opposite part intimated the complainant to pay Rs. 82,920-73 being the balance of the amount payable. THE complainant paid that amount on 3-7-1989. In the meanwhile on 18-8-1989 the Maruthi Udyog Limited enhanced the price of the car and the complainant was asked to pay the difference of Rs. 6,650/- on 18-8-1989 by a letter. THE complainant paid the amount on 19-8-1989 and the car was ready for delivery on 23-9-1989 and actually delivered on 6-10-1989. Alleging that the collection of further amount of Rs. 6,650/- towards the car after 1. months of payment of total stipulated cost of the car, cannot be collected, and that the opposite party is liable to refund the same. C.D. 29/90 was filed in the District Forum, Euro for the said relief.

THE opposite party filed a counter denying their liability to refund Rs. 6,650/-. He submitted according to the terms and conditions of the agreement, price of the car prevailing as on the date of delivery has to be paid by the person who booked, the vehicle. He also contended that the complainant is not a consumer and therefore the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum held that it has got territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It also held that the further collection of Rs. 6,650/- towards the cost of the vehicle, after the entire amount was paid due to subsequent increase in the price of the vehicle is not justified and that therefore the opposite party is not entitled to collect the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,650/-. It accordingly directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 6,650/- to the complainant together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 19-9-1989 to the date of the order and with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. till the date of payment and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards damages.

Aggrieved by the said order the above appeal was preferred. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that according to the terms of the agreement the complainant has to pay the price prevailing as on the date of the delivery of the vehicle. In the instant case, Maruti Udyog Limited enhanced the price on 18-8-1989; and the car was actually ready for delivery on 23-9-1989 and the complainant took delivery on 6-10-1989. Since the prevailing price was more than the amount paid by the complainant already, the difference being Rs. 6,650/- and the opposite party rightly collected the said amount. It is further submitted that even otherwise without going into the merits the complaint is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 12-10-1992 in Revision Petition Nos. 50 and 61 of 1992. Revision Petition No. 50/1992 filed by Maruti Udyog Limited against Kodaikkanal Township and others. Revision Petition No. 61 of 1992 was filed by M/s. The Annamalais Bus Transport Limited, Madurai v. Kodaikkanal Township and others. In these revisions the National Commission held that unless the price is fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods, no complaint can be entertained. In the instant case, the price was not enhanced by any statute or by any law nor it was displayed on the Car. Following the aforesaid judgment, we hold that since the enhanced price is only by Maruti Udyog Limited and not under any statute or displayed on the goods we are of the view that the complaint is not maintainable.

IN the result the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.