Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Kumar Loomba & ANR.  INSC 1219 (15 July
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1841 OF 2003 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. .... Appellant Versus Rajiv Kumar Loomba
& Anr. .... Respondents WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1842 OF 2003 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. .... Appellant Versus
Anil Batra & Anr. .... Respondents ORDER Civil Appeal No. 1841/2003
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 Revision Petition No. 523/1998 filed by the appellant
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
There is no representation on behalf of the respondents despite
service of notice.
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 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 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 2 complainant-respondent No. 1 was allowed by the
District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.12.1996. Against the
said order of the District Forum, the appellant filed 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 impugned order.
this appeal by special leave.
Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for the 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 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.
The respondent No. 1, at the relevant time lived in Chandigarh.
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 the appellant. Thus, he should not have been charged
an extra Rs. 7,000/- for his Maruti car as a person living in the four
Metropolitan Cities abovementioned alone have to have a catalytic converter in
We are in agreement with the view taken by the Consumer Fora.
Since, there was no mandatory obligation at the relevant time for a resident of
Chandigarh to have a catalytic converter in his car, and the respondent No. 1
actually did not 3 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 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, in our opinion charging
him Rs. 7,000/- for the same was wholly arbitrary.
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 Commission or the other consumer fora and hence we are not inclined to
accept this oral submission.
Mr. Bhasin further submitted that in pricing matters the consumer
forum cannot interfere and in this behalf he has relied upon the decisions of
this Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2005 (2) SCC 227.
Barot (supra), it is a very cursory order and has no application
to the present case.
The decision in Pallavi Refractories (supra) in fact 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 4
have a dual fixation of price. Dual fixation of price based on reasonable
classification from different types of customers has met with approval from the
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 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.
As regards the decision in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board
(supra), it has been observed therein (in the last sentence of para 26) as
therefore, it would not be appropriate to enter into adequacy of price."
In this connection, two things may be noted. Firstly, use of the
word 'normally' indicates that it is not a hard and fast rule. 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.
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
government directive is on the record of this case, but even if there is such a
directive, in our opinion, it will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India.
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 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 exhaustive of sub-clauses (i) to (x)
For the reasons stated above, we find no force in this appeal. It
is dismissed accordingly. No order as to the costs.
Appeal No. 1842/2003
For the reasons mentioned in our order in Civil Appeal No.
1841/2003, this appeal is also dismissed. No order as to the costs.
.....................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)
.....................J. (V.S. SIRPURKAR)