2011 (2) TMI 220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 1485 of 2005 and the order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the said Commission in Revision Petition No. 2974 of 2005 filed by the respondent No. 1, Maruti Udyog Limited and also M.A. No. 599 of 2006 in Revision Petition 1533 of 2005 filed by the respondent No. 2, namely, Competent Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., the dealer. 2. The petitioner, Mr. Ravinder Raj, who is appearing in person, applied to Maruti Udyog Ltd. in 1985-1986 for booking a Maruti Car-800 and deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as initial/advance booking payment. On 15th July, 1988, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner by letter of even date that his Maruti Car Allotment No. 0802-N-04051 had mature....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner's claim. Against the said order, the respondents went before the National Commission, which reversed the order passed by the State Forum. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition. 6. As indicated hereinabove, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that since he was not responsible for the delay in the delivery of the vehicle, he should not be made to bear the increase in the price, particularly, when from the documents, as indicated by him, the vehicle of the colour chosen by him was available with the respondents. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the National Forum was erroneous and was liable to be set aside. 7. Appearing for the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the price by way of additional taxes would have to be borne by the customer and not by the manufacturer. He also reiterated that since there was no negligence on the part of the manufacturer in making the vehicle available to the petitioner and since no mala fide intention had been proved, the petitioner would have to bear the increase in the prices. 10. Having considered the submissions made, we may refer to the letter of 15th July, 1988, which had been written on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner indicating that the petitioner's allotment No. had matured for delivery. In the second paragraph of the letter, the respondent No. 2 requested the petitioner to complete the modalities for effecting delivery of the car ....