9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of any evidence of any deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to delay delivery of the vehicle, we are unable to agree with the petitioner that the increase in price has to be borne by the respondents - As regard to the provisions of Section 46A(1)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, it is the liability of the petitioner to pay the extra price when the excise duty had been enhanced prior to the delivery of the vehicle. - Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10364 of 2006 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9739-9740 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2011 - Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ravinder Raj, himself-in-person. S/Shri Nikunj Dayal, Pramod Dayal, Ms. Sapna Sinha and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advocates, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty payable, causing a price hike of about Rs. 6710.61. On 18th March, 1989, the petitioner received a letter from the respondent No. 2 to deposit the excess amount payable as excise duty, and, accordingly, the petitioner did so under protest on 16th February, 1989. 4. The official billing in respect of the car was done on 5th April, 1989. 5. The petitioner has contended that the delay in delivery of the vehicle to him by the respondents was not occasioned by any failure or negligence on his part and the liability to pay the increased amount on account of increase in excise duty, was not that of the petitioner, but of the respondents concerned. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the District Consumer Forum for a direction upon the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable at that point of time, although, from the documents it would appear that the same was available. According to her, the said documents only indicated that these were the colours in which the cars were being manufactured and did not really indicate the fact that such a colour was available on a particular date. 8. According to her, there was no negligence on the part of the dealer since having received intimation about the readiness of the vehicle, the respondent No. 2 had immediately informed the petitioner, but unfortunately, in the meantime, the price had risen. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 2 could not, therefore, be made liable for the increase in the price. 9. Mr. Dayal, appearing for the the Maurti Udyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of billing would apply. 12. In this case, the billing was done on 5th of April, 2009. In the absence of any evidence of any deliberate intention on the part of the respondents to delay delivery of the vehicle, we are unable to agree with the petitioner that the increase in price has to be borne by the respondents. The petitioner had relied on two decisions of this Court in the case of Omprakash v. Assistant Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., 1994 (3) SCC 504 and Mohinder Pratap Dass v. Modern Automobiles and Anr. 1995 (3) SCC 581, on the same issue. The said two decisions in our view are not applicable to the facts of this case, on account of the fact that in the said two matters patent deficiency in the service had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
