MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. versus RAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR.

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. versus RAJIV KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR.

Charging a consumer for a catalytic converter not supplied, especially where there is no legal mandate for fitting the device and the consumer did not opt for it, amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Fixation of price not based on reasonable classification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and any directive to charge same price for cars with or without catalytic converter cannot stand.

Parties
Appellant: Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.; Respondent: Rajiv Kumar Loomba; Respondent: Rajiv Kumar Loomba & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Trade Practice, Judicial Review of Price Fixation, Arbitrariness Under Article 14
Consumer Protection Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Unfair Trade Practice Judicial Review of Price Fixation Arbitrariness Under Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

Appellant

Rajiv Kumar Loomba

Respondent

Rajiv Kumar Loomba & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether charging a consumer for a catalytic converter not supplied amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
  2. 2 Whether fixation of price can be sustained if not based on reasonable classification
  3. 3 Whether a government directive to charge same price for all cars, irrespective of fitting a catalytic converter, violates Article 14

Ratio Decidendi

Charging a consumer for a catalytic converter not supplied, especially where there is no legal mandate for fitting the device and the consumer did not opt for it, amounts to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Fixation of price not based on reasonable classification is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and any directive to charge same price for cars with or without catalytic converter cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs.
  • Refund of Rs. 7,000/- sought by respondent rightly allowed by Consumer Fora.