ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, Member
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vanita Sapra, respondent in person.
2. In this matter, the respondent No. 1 booked a Maruti Standard 800 C.C. car on 10.7.1990 and deposited FDR for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. It was agreed that “the price of the vehicle prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable”. The respondent No. 1 admittedly filed affidavit to the same effect. The delivery of the vehicle was “subject to normal production of vehicle by Maruti Udyog Ltd. and availability of the vehicle in the colour choice as planned”. By an intimation M/s. Pasco Automobiles informed and gave an option to the respondent No. 1 to replace the FDR of Rs. 35,000/- “by a demand draft for the ‘C’ Form price of the vehicle to retain your seniority of booking. This should be done on or before 15th December, 1990”. The respondent No. 1 accordingly deposited the amount of the car in terms of the ‘C’ Form price of the vehicle. The petitioner in the meanwhile raised the price and further demanded and quoted the increased price before delivery of the vehicle. The vehicle was found defective. Some amount was charged to undertake necessary repairs to change particular parts. Complainant being dissatisfied filed a complaint claiming damages of Rs. 50,000/- or replacement of the car, Rs. 10,000/- for agony, harassment and refund of Rs. 4,861.13 which was charged as enhanced price, refund of taxi charges of Rs. 14.98 and charge towards replacement of tapper cover packing, refund of Rs. 182.72 as cost of accessories and sum of Rs. 550/- as interest.
3. The District Forum after considering the matter held that the complainant/respondent was entitled to refund of Rs. 4,861.13 ps. paid in excess with interest @ 12% from the date of order till the date of payment along with payment of Rs. 10,000/- as damages and other amounts.
4. An appeal was filed against the order of the District Forum before the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad. The State Commission dismissed the appeal upholding the view taken by the learned District Forum. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the agreement between the parties and the affidavits filed by the respondent, Mrs. Vanita Sapra, the price of the vhicle prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable by her. The learned District Forum as well as the State Commission had travelled beyond their jurisdiction by ignoring this undisputed fact. The respondent had not disputed the annexure indicating that the price of vehicle prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable by her, however, she submitted that whatever price ‘C’ Forum of the vehicle was informed, that was deposited and after deposit of the entire amount the petitioner was not entitled to increase it further, she also submitted that the price was increased before she deposited ‘C’ Form price and it was increased again between 14.12.1990 i.e. the date of full desposit and 21.3.1997, the date of delivery of the vehicle. After considering the Annexures ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ along with Annexure ‘E’, it is apparent that while there is no doubt that theAnnexure ‘B’ the undertaking and the affidavits were given before the full ‘C’ Form price was paid by the respondent; but, it is also apparent that the condition that the price of the vehicle prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable was not modified by Annexure ‘D’ giving option to deposit the entire amount. There is no doubt that the delivery of the vehicle was not given. In this regard, it is also notable that all deliveries w.e.f. 12.11.1990 would be made according to the seniority determined by the date on which customers deposit the demand draft for the ‘C’ Form price of the vehicle. It is not the case of the respondent that the seniority was ever ignored. Consequently, in the light of the terms of the agreement as referred to hereinabove, the respondent was liable to pay the price of the vehicle as was prevailing on the date of delivery. Naturally, the enhanced price was to be paid in terms of the agreement. In the year 1991, it was not a consumer-controlled market. It was a market controlled by Maruti and, thus, whosoever wanted to purchase had to wait for their turn in the light of the units manufacutured and supplied by the Maruti in order of seniority. The price of a car which had already been manufactured could be quoted; but if its delivery depends on the cars to be produced some time gap might be left in between the date of booking of car and the date of delivery. In the meanwhile, the cost of production could go up for various good reasons. From that point the condition that the price prevailing on the date of delivery would be payable cannot be said to be unreasonable.
6. Besides, learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard referred to a judgment in R.P. No. 278 of 1999, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Anr. v. Purshuttom v. Moorjani and Anr., decided by this Commission on 29th July, 1999. In that case, a similar condition that the prices prevailing at the time of delivery of vehicle was applicable. The judgment of the State Commission was reversed and the petition was allowed. This Commission distinguished the judgment in the case of Om prakash v. Asst. Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., II (1994) CPJ 1 (SC)=1994 Vol. II Consumer Protection Reported Page 9 for seniority of booking was not disturbed in Purshottam’s case, as was the case in Om Prakash (supra).
7. For the aforesaid reasons, it appears that the District Forum as well as the State Commission has by ignoring the agreement in between the parties exercised jurisdiction not vested with them. Thus, it is evident that there was material illegality in ignoring the terms and conditions of the agreement to pay the price prevailing on the date of delivery. The revision petition is allowed accordingly by partly accepting the revision to the extent that the payment of alleged amount in excess of ‘C’ Form price deposited i.e. Rs. 4,861.13 paise along with interest thereon need not be refunded to the respondent No. 1 and in peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left at their own costs.
8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.