In set case,
In 1986 Mr. Ravinder Raj booked a cream colour Maruti 800 car by paying Rs. 10,000. He booked a car in Competent Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd. showroom which was associated with the Maruti Udyog Ltd. for selling of Maruti cars through their showrooms.
In July 15, 1988 showroom informed Mr. Ravinder Raj that his maruti car allotment has matured for delivery. In Feb. 1989 he paid Rs. 78,351.05 towards the total cost of the car. In order to confirm the full payment. But at 1st march 1989 there was an increase in excise duty payable, caused a price hike of Rs. 6,710.61. in same showroom sent an letter to Mr. Ravinder stating that he need to pay excess amount. in april5,1989 Mr. Ravinder under protest pays the excess amount and filed a suit against Maruti Udyog Ltd. & Competent Motor CO. Pvt. Ltd. stating that he was not responsible in any ways in delay in delivery of the vehicle so he should not be made to bear the increase in price because of excise duty.
According to respondents and their learned counsel, amount paid was subject to the price prevailing on the date of invoice. Delay in delivery was because of the colour of vehicle which Mr. Ravinder had requested. No evidence of any deliberate intention on part of the respondents to delay delivery.
As per the section 64 of sale of goods act, 1930, the burden of any increase in the price byway of additional taxes would have to be become by the consumer and not by the manufacturer.
As per the section 46A(1) (b) of 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.
Therefore here companies need not provide any compensation to Mr. Ravinder Raj as per the sales of goods act, 1930. 6