MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. AMIT KOTHARI ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. as against the order of the District Forum, Jodhpur dated 1.12.92 only a short point for determination is involved as to whether the complainant was entitled to get interest at 18% p. a. as awarded by the District Forum from the date of the booking of the Maruti 1000 car by him till the date of the refund of the booking amount.

(2.) The complainant-respondent did not appear despite service. We have, therefore, heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. Reference may be made to the booking advertisement issued by the appellant whereby alongwith the booking application form, an account payee demand draft for Rs.25,000/- in favour of Maruti Udyog Ltd. payable at any scheduled Bank at Bombay was required. It was provided that all the applications will be segregated on a city-wise basis and priority numbers will be allotted to them by pseudo random number generation technique using a computer. Only 25,000 bookings were to be accepted all over India. The number of booking accepted for each city was to be in proportion to the number of booking applications received for that city. In addition, another 5% applicants in each city were to be kept on a waiting list to be activated against any subsequent cancellations. For remaining applications the advance deposit was to be refunded within three months of the closing date of the booking and no interest was to accrue on such refunds. However, if booking was to be accepted interest will be payable @ 7%, compounded annually as per the details given in the application form. Admittedly the complainant had got booked Maruti 1000 Car in November, 1989. He did not get priority for acceptance of his booking. Consequently the appellant refunded to the complainant the booking amount of Rs.25,000/- on 24.2.90 within three months of the booking.

(3.) We are of the opinion that no complaint lies under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in such cases because there is neither any sale of goods and nor any hiring of services. Sale of goods can only arise after the goods are delivered to the customer for consideration. Maruti Udyog Ltd. was not rendering any service. The booking of cars was only an offer to sell and subject to the conditions made in the advertisement of booking. As already stated, persons whose bookings were not accepted were only entitled to refund of the deposit made by them within three months without interest. There being no hiring of service, no question of deficiency arises. The Maruti Udyog Ltd. had already refunded the booking amount as per terms and conditions and there is not even a breach of contract for which remedy could lie in a Civil Court. The District Forum was wrong in awarding interest at 18% p. a. to the complainant on the booking amount.