MARUTI UDYOG LTD Vs. SAMEER KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) Very briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant booked a Maruti car with the 2nd petitioner by way of depositing of Rs. 1,88,745 by bank draft in the name of the 1st petitioner on 28.12.1994. He was placed at Sl. No. 2 by letter dated 11.1.1995. The delivery was to be made within an approximate period of 18 weeks which literally would mean that the car would be delivered by middle of May, 1995. The petitioner company increased the price of Maruti 800 AC by Rs. 4,500 effective from 10th April 1995, the cumulative effect of this in Delhi Showroom was an increase in price to the extent of Rs. 6,825.21ps. The respondent was delivered the car on 19.9.1995 by charging increased price of Rs. 2,10,566.33 ps. and taxes of Rs. 8,422.60 ps., thus, in all, charging Rs. 2,20,166.67 ps., () Rs. 1,88,745 (already deposited on 28.12.1994) as also interest @ 7% for 257 days (date of deposit of the amount till the date of delivery) amounting to Rs. 9,303. It was the view of the complainant, that he should have been supplied the car at the deposited amount; thus, alleging an unfair trade practice, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund Rs. 22,118 received in excess from the complainant and also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the deposited amount for the period from July 1995 to 18th September, 1995 along with cost of Rs. 250 and Counsel fee of Rs. 250. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner as also the respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed with modification that rate of interest @ 18% was reduced to 7% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, petitioners have filed this revision petition before us.

(3.) Notice was served on the first respondent. Since the first respondent has filed synopsis and written arguments but did not appear, despite service of notice, hence he was ordered to be proceeded ex parte.