10364 of 2006 and 9739 9740 of 2009, have been filed against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2005, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1485 of 2005 and the order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the said Commission in Revision Petition No.2974 of 2005 filed by the respondent No.1, Maruti Udyog Limited and also M.A.No.599 of 2006 in Revision Petition 1533 of 2005 filed by the respondent No.2, namely, Competent Motors Co.Pvt.
Pursuant to the above letter, the petitioner on 16th February, 1989, paid a total amount of Rs.78,351.05 which companyered the price of the vehicle, insurance charges and other minor charges, including registration charges.
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.
The official billing in respect of the car was done on 5th April, 1989.
There is numberdenial that the petitioner had opted for a cream companyour vehicle.
Such a prayer was rejected by the District Consumer Forum.
It is against the said order that the petitioner has companye to this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.
On 15th July, 1988, the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner by letter of even date that his Maruti Car Allotment No.0802 N 04051 had matured for delivery and requested the petitioner to make payment of the full amount of the price of the car for delivery of the vehicle after companypleting the necessary formalities.
The petitioner then went to the State Forum which allowed the petitioners claim.
Two Special Leave Petitions, being SLP C Nos.
On 1st March, 1989, there was an increase in the excise duty payable, causing a price hike of about Rs.6710.61.
Against the said order, the respondents went before the National Commission, which reversed the order passed by the State Forum.
As indicated hereinabove, the main ground urged by the petitioner is that since he was number responsible for the delay in the delivery of the vehicle, he should number be made to bear the increase in the price, particularly, when from the documents, as indicated by him, the vehicle of the companyour chosen by him was available with the respondents.
Ltd., the dealer.
The petitioner, Mr. Ravinder Raj, who is appearing in person, applied to Maruti Udyog Ltd.in 1985 1986 for booking a Maruti Car 800 and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/ as initial advance booking payment.
