SC pulls up Maruti for unfair trade practices

In a ruling that would cheer consumers, the Supreme Court has ruled that car manufacturers cannot charge a customer for parts and accessories which they have not provided as it would amount to "unfair trade practices."
 
"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," the apex court observed while dismissing an appeal filed by Maruti Suzuki Limited.
 
The popular car manufacturer had filed an appeal after the consumer fora directed it to refund the Rs 7,000 it collected from Chandigarh-based customer Rajiv Kumar Loomba towards "cataylytic converter," since the said part was never fitted to the car.
 
The district, state and later the National Consumer Redressal Commission (NCRDC) had ruled in favour of the customer, after which Maruti appealed in the apex court.
 
Maruti in its appeal invoked a policy decision of the central government dated March 23, 1995, under which all petrol-driven four wheelers sold in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkota and Chennai shall be fitted with a catalytic converted.

However, the apex court rejected the Maruti's argument and said the policy decision was restricted only to the four metros but since the customer was based in Chandigarh, the mandatory provision did not apply to him.
 
Moreover, the bench said that in Loomba's case, the catalytic converter was never fitted but Rs 7,000 was collected from him.
 
"We are in agreement with the view taken by the consumer fora. Since, there was no mandatory obligation at the relavant time for a resident of Chandigarh to have a catalytic conveter in his car, and the respondent No 1 (customer) actually did not 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 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 arbitary," a bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and V S Sirpurkar observed in an order.