Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a consumer complaint regarding the delivery of a Maruti Car-800 booked by the petitioner, Mr. Ravinder Raj, in 1985-1986. The petitioner paid an initial booking amount and later the full price, but due to an increase in excise duty, he was asked to pay an additional amount before delivery. The petitioner contended that the delay in delivery was not his fault and sought to have the respondents bear the increased cost. The District Consumer Forum initially ruled in his favor, but the State Forum's decision was reversed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, prompting the petitioner to file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The court considered the arguments from both sides, including the dealer's claim that the petitioner was responsible for the price increase as the billing occurred after the excise duty hike. The court referenced Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, stating that the burden of any price increase due to additional taxes falls on the customer. Ultimately, the court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the petitioner must bear the increased price due to the timing of the billing and lack of negligence from the respondents. The court also dismissed a related petition for interest on the amount claimed, with no orders as to costs.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Liability for Price Increase - Burden of Price Increase - Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Section 64A - The court held that the petitioner was liable to pay the increased price due to excise duty as the billing was done after the increase and there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. The court found that the petitioner had been informed about the readiness of the vehicle and the price applicable was that prevailing at the time of billing (Paras 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner should bear the increase in price due to excise duty despite the delay in delivery not being his fault.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that the petitioner was liable for the increased price due to excise duty as the billing was done after the increase and there was no negligence on the part of the respondents.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- Sale of Goods Act
- excise duty
- liability for price increase
- delivery delay
