ORDER
C.M. Nayar, J. (Chairman)
1. The applicant/complainant has filed a complaint under Section 36(B)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 as well as Compensation Application against the respondents. The complainant booked a Maruti car with respondent No. 1, namely, M/s. Rohan Motors Limited on 8th January, 1998 and the total cost of the same cited in the invoice dated 9th January, 1998 was Rs. 2,03,731 /-. The Order Booking Form reveals that the applicant/ complainant had booked a Maruti car (Standard-unleaded) and the period of delivery was specified as 8-10 weeks. Applicant/ complainant, however, took delivery of the Maruti car (Standard-leaded) vide invoice dated 9th January, 1998, which is filed as Annexure-II and is stated to be using the same even at present. The main grievance of the applicant/ complainant is that though he had booked an unleaded version of the car, he was not supplied with the same and only a Standard leaded car was supplied to him.
2. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 6th July, 1999 and the matter was put up for trial :
UTPE 193/1998
(1) Whether the respondents have been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the Notice of Enquiry ?
(2) Whether the alleged unfair trade practices are prejudicial to the interest of the public, consumer/consumers generally ?
C.A. 306/1998
(1) Whether the respondents have been indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the Compensation Application ?
(2) Whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage on account of the alleged unfair trade practices ?
(3) Relief, if any.
3. There is no doubt that the applicant/ complainant had booked a Maruti (Standard-unleaded) car but at the same time the period of delivery was specified as 8-10 weeks. He, however, took delivery of Maruti 9 (Standard-leaded) car vide invoice dated 9th January, 1998 and appended his signatures to the said invoice.
4. In view of the fact that the applicant/ complainant took possession of this car and appended his signatures to the invoice dated 9.1.1998 in token of having accepted the model of Maruti (Standard-leaded), we do not find any ground to intervene in the present proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint petition and the compensation application are dismissed. Notice of Enquiry issued in UTPE No. 193/98 also stands discharged. We, however, feel that the respondents ought to have examined the complaint of the applicant/complanant and should have given sufficient explanation to him, which was not done despite the receipt of the legal notice. There shall be no order as to the costs.