Supreme Court of India
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.versusRAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 908
- Decided
- 15 July 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Charging the consumer for a catalytic converter that was not supplied is an unfair trade practice and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The consumer purchased a Maruti car in Chandigarh and was charged Rs 7,000 for a catalytic converter that was neither fitted nor required in that city. The consumer sought a refund, and the District Consumer Forum ordered a refund, which was upheld by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that charging for a non‑supplied converter was arbitrary and constituted an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court further observed that price fixation must be based on a reasonable classification, which was absent here, and any Central Government directive to charge the same price irrespective of actual fitting would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether charging a consumer for a catalytic converter that was not supplied amounts to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- Whether the classification of consumers based on residence in four metropolitan cities for price fixation is reasonable under administrative law.
- Whether a Central Government directive to charge a uniform price for all cars, irrespective of the presence of a catalytic converter, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 2(1)(r)
Subjects
consumer protectionunfair trade practicecatalytic converterprice discriminationreasonable classificationArticle 14administrative lawdual price fixation
Judgment
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 1013
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. A
~--..i
v.
RAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1841 of 2003)
JULY 15, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]
~ ,,.. .,.
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986:
s.2(1)(r) - Unfair trade practice - Cons·umer charged for c
a device which was not provided in the car sold to him - Held:
The act of the manufacturer-seller was wholly arbitrary and
would amount to unfair trade practice - Definition in s.2(1)(r)
is an inclusive one and is not exhaustive of sub-clauses (i)
. -·~ to (x) - Even if there is a direction of the Central Government D
that same price should be charged for all cars whether fitted
with catalytic converter or not, it will be violative of Article 14
of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW:
E
Fixation of price - Judicial review of - Held: Fixation of
,I price can only be sustained if it is based on a reasonable
classification - In the instant case, the classification is not
reasonable, since a person whose vehicle does not have a
catalytic converter should not be made to pay for the same. F
State of Gujarat vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot &
Anr. (1996) 5 SCC 477 - held inapplicable.
Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. vs. Sea Shore
Apartments Owners' Welfare Association (2008) 3 SCC 21- G
.-.J distinguished .
Pallavi Refractories & Ors. vs. Singareni Collieries Co.
LPtd. & Ors. (20005) 2 SCC 227, referred to.
1013 H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1841 of 2003. )'< ...
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.7.2002 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Revision Petition No. 523 of 1998.
B
WITH
C.A. No. 1842 of 2003.
r •
Lalit Bhasin, Nina Gupta, Tulika Mukherjee, Swigin George
c and Bina Gupta for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
D f_
Civil Appeal No. 1841/2003
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the
impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 26.07.2002 in
E Revision Petition No. 523i1998 filed by the appellant herein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents
despite service of notice.
F
4. It appears that a complaint had been filed by the
respondent No. 1 herein against the appellant herein before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh. The
grievance of the complainant in the complaint was that although
G a catalytic converter was not fixed in the Maruti car which was
sold to him by the appellant, yet he has been charged a sum
l ~
of Rs.7,000/- for the same. The complainant claimed that he
should be refunded the sum of Rs.7,000/-. The claim of the
complainant-respondent No. 1 was allowed by the District
H Consumer Forum, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.12.1996.
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. v. RAJIV KUMAR 1015
LOOMBA & ANR.
Against the said order of the District Forum, the appellant filed A
~·'"I
an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh which was dismissed
vide order dated 18th March, 1998. Thereafter the appellant
preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission which has been dismissed by the B
impugned order. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
5. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the
r "t
appellant has invited our attention to a policy decision dated
22.3.1995. of the Central Government, which is annexed as
Annexure/P-1 to this appeal. By the said decision the Central
c
Government had directed that all 4 wheeler petrol vehicles sold
in the cities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras shall be
fitted with a catalytic converter. However, there was no
mandatory requirement for a catalytic converter in such vehicles
¥_..::,.-
at the relevant time in respect of other cities in India. D
6. The respondent No. 1, at the relevant time lived in
Charidigarh. Hence, he alleged that he was under no legal
obligation to get fitted a catalytic converter in his Maruti car nor
did he actually get the same fitted in his car purchased from E
the appellant. Th1,.1s, he should not have been charged an extra
Rs. 7,000/- for 11.($/,Maruti car as a person living in the four
~
Metropolitan Citie~ abovementioned alone have to have a
catalytic converter in his car.
7. We are in agreement with the view taken by the F
Consumer Fora. Since, there was no mandatory obligation at
the relevant ti111e for a resident of Chandigarh to have a catalytic
converter in his car, and the respondent No. 1 actually did not
have the same fitted in his car, we are of the opinion that he
should not have been charged an extra Rs.7,000/- for the G
.-.):. catalytic converter which was charged from persons living in
Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. Of course, if he had
opted for such catalytic converter he would have to pay the price
for the same, but he never opted for it. Hence. iri our opinion
charging him Rs. 7,000/- for the same was wholly arbitrary. H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 10 S.C.R.
A 8. Mr. Bhasin then submitted that even a person living in
\.' -'.
any other city apart from the 4 metropolitan cities would have
been given a catalytic converter in his Maruti car free of cost
had he asked for it. There is no such averment in the written
submission filed by the appellant before the National Consumer
B Commission or the other consumer fora and hence we are not
inclined to accept this oral submission.
9. Mr. Bhasin further submitted that in pricing matters the f •
consumer forum cannot interfere and in this behalf he has relied
upon the decisions of this Court in the cases of State of Gujarat
c Vs. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr. 1996 (5) SCC 477,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Ors. Vs. Sea Shore Apartments
Owners' Welfare Association 2008 (3) SCC, 21 and Pallavi
Refractories & Ors. Vs. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2005 (2) sec 221.
D ,,
10. As regards the decision in State of Gujarat Vs. Rajesh
Kumar Chimanlal Barot (supra), it is a very cursory order and
has no application to the present case.
11. The decision in Pallavi Refractories (supra) in fact
E
supports the case of the respondent. It has been observed in
paragraph 19 of the said judgment that,
"There is no such law that a particular commodity
cannot have a dual fixation of price. Dual fixation of price
F based on reasonable classification from different types of
customers has met with approval from the Courts."
12. The above observation clearly indicates that dual
fixation of price can only be sustained if it is based on a
reasonable classification. In the present case, as already
G
mentioned above, the classification is not reasonable, since a
person whose vehicle does not have a catalytic converter
~ ...
should not be made to pay for the same.
13. As regards the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu
H Housing Board (supra), it has been observed therein (in the
MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. v. RAJIV KUMAR 1017
LOOMBA & ANR.
last sentence of para 26) as under : A
"Normally, therefore, it would not be appropriate to
enter into adequacy of price."
14. In this connection, two things may be noted. Firstly, use
of the word 'normally' indicates that it is not a hard and fast rule. B
Secondly, in the present case we are not really concerned with
adequacy of price. We are concerned with charging by the
appellant for a converter which he has not supplied to the
respondent. In our opinion, this is unfair trade practice as
defined in Section 2(1 )(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. C
15. Mr. Bhasin also submitted that the Central Government
had directed that the same price be charged for all cars,
whether fitted with a converter or not. No such government
directive is on the record of this case, but even if there is such
0
a directive, in our opinion, it will be arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
16. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant
was that he was being overcharged for a catalytic converter
which he neither demanded nor was it actually fitted in his car E
purchased from the appellant. In our opinion, the complaint filed
by respondent No. 1 is justified as the aforesaid act amounts
to an unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1 )(r) of the
Consumer Protection act, 1986. It may be noted that the
definition in Section 2(1 )(r) is an inclusive one, and is not F
exhaustive of sub-clauses (i) to (x) therein.
17. For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this
appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.
Civil Appeal No. 1842/2003 G
.._) 18. For the reasons mentioned in our order in Civil Appeal
No. 1841/2003, this appeal is also dismissed. No order as to
the costs.
R.P. Appeals dismissed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "consumer protection"Sign in to search