The grievance of the companyplainant in the companyplaint was that although a catalytic companyverter was number fixed in the Maruti car which was sold to him by the appellant, yet he has been charged a sum of Rs.7,000/ for the same.
Against the said order of the District Forum, the appellant filed an appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh which was dismissed vide order dated 18th March, 1998.
By the said decision the Central Government had directed that all 4 wheeler petrol vehicles sold in the cities of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras shall be fitted with a catalytic companyverter.
1 was allowed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandigarh vide order dated 3.12.1996.
1841/2003 This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 26.07.2002 in Revision Petition No.
Hence, he alleged that he was under numberlegal obligation to get fitted a catalytic companyverter in his Maruti car number did he actually get the same fitted in his car purchased from the appellant.
Thereafter the appellant preferred a revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
7,000/ for his Maruti car as a person living in the four Metropolitan Cities abovementioned alone have to have a catalytic companyverter in his car.
1 herein against the appellant herein before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh.
Thus, he should number have been charged an extra Rs.
The companyplainant claimed that he should be refunded the sum of Rs.7,000/ .
The claim of the companyplainant respondent No.
It appears that a companyplaint had been filed by the respondent No.
However, there was numbermandatory requirement for a catalytic companyverter in such vehicles at the relevant time in respect of other cities in India.
523/1998 filed by the appellant herein.
Heard learned companynsel for the appellant.
Civil Appeal No.
There is numberrepresentation on behalf of the respondents despite service of numberice.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
The respondent No.
1, at the relevant time lived in Chandigarh.
