Kodaikkanal Township and others placed an order with a distributor of Maruticars, in accordance with the rate contract entered

into between the distributor andthe company. The distributor agreed to deliver the vehicle within 3 to 5 weeks fromthe time of payment of full amount. The delivery was affected after about 8 monthsand at that time, an additional sum of about Rs. 41000 was demanded and was paidunder protest by the Kodaikkanal Township. The additional amount was as a resultof the increase in price which took place in the meanwhile. The complaint was filedwith the district forum on the ground that it was not liable to pay the increased priceon account of delay in the supply of the vehicle which was to be delivered at theprice in accordance with the rate contract entered into. Further he claimed that onaccount of delay, he had to get his old vehicle repaired for use and on which hespent Rs. 21000. Therefore, he claimed about Rs. 62000.The claim was resisted by both the distributor and the manufacturer of thevehicle. Their contention was that the delivery mentioned in the invoice was onlyapproximate and tentative and the time was not the essence of the contract. Theterms of the contract clearly stipulated that the price of the vehicle was to be the oneprevailing on the date of delivery. The district forum passed an order giving directionto the distributors and the manufactures to refund jointly or severally of Rs. 41000,the excess amount deposited under protest by the compliant. It however dismissedhis other claims.The d istributors and the m anufacture of Marut i car p rof fered an appeal against the order of the District Forum. But the state Commission dismissed the 49 appeal. There upon, they went in for a revision appe a l b e f o r e t h e N a t i o n a l Commission.T h e N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n , w i t h o u t g o i n g i n t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e , express

ed their opinion that his compliant was not maintainable under the Act. If itall, it could be covered under s.2(1)(c)(iv)of the Act but the price of Maruti Car wasnot fixed by or under any law. Even the standard of Weight and Measures Rule didnot apply in this case. The rate contract between DGS and D and the manufacturewas a contractual and not a statuary price. The National Commission opined thateven if the leader had charged excess price, the compliant is not maintainable under the Act. Therefore, the national Commission accepted both the revision petition of the dealer and the manufacturer of Maruti cars. [Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Kodaikkanal Township and others (1993)1 Comp L J217 (NCDRC)