MARUTI UDYOG LIMITED Vs. KODAILKANAL TOWNSHIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.