1

REPORTABLE 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

O R D E R 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 Revision Petition No. 523/1998 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.

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 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.  

Hence, this appeal by special leave.

5. 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.   

6. 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 his car.

7. 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.   

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 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  consumer  

forum cannot interfere and in this  behalf  he has relied upon the decisions of this  

Court in the cases of  State of Gujarat 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) SCC 227.   

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 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 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 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  Housing  Board  

(supra), it has been observed therein (in the last sentence of para 26) as under :

"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.  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.   

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 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

5

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) 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

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.  

.....................J.        (MARKANDEY KATJU)

.....................J.        (V.S. SIRPURKAR)

NEW DELHI; JULY 15, 2009