Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(r) - Revision against order of Fora below holding unfair trade practice - Booking of Maruti Car - Basic price deposited - Delivery in 18 weeks - Meanwhile price revised upward - Revised price charged at the time of delivery - Complaint - Consumer Forum holding it as an unfair trade practice - Ordering refund with interest @ 18% of excess amount - State Commission upholding it in appeal, but reducing interest to 7% p.a. - Whether Fora below were right in holding it as an unfair trade practice? (No) - Refund modified but rate of interest affirmed at 7% p.a. Held: The main argument is that vehicle was to be delivered within 18 weeks from 11.1.95. We have no dispute with this contention/plea of the Respondent/Complainant but what has to be seen is whether the price deposited was the basic price or the delivery price? Enough material has been brought on record that what was paid by the first Respondent/Complainant was the 'basic price' of the car. It did not include the taxes like the sales - tax, dealer's commission nor the delivery price, which, in our view, cannot be denied to the petitioner. In view of above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission in its present form, which is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be free to charge the prevailing price as applicable in middle of May, 1995, i.e., date when the 18 weeks period expires from 11.1.95. Petitioner shall refund the difference, if any, between the price actually charged from the petitioner and the amount becoming due in the light of above directions. It is to be noted that the petitioner has already paid interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of booking till the delivery of the vehicle by the petitioner. We also up - hold the grant of interest @ 7% p.a. from July 1995 to 18th September 1995 along with cost of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission stands modified in above terms. Result: Revision allowed in part. Important Point Booking on deposit of basic price and not at delivery price entitles the dealer to charge revised price before delivery at the time of actual delivery. It is not an unfair trade practice. Order B K Taimni, Member - 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 Rs. 1,88,745/- by bank draft in the name of the 151 Petitioner on 28.12.94. He was placed at SI. No. 2 by letter-dated 11.1.95. 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 10th April 1995, the cumulative effect of this in Delhi Showroom was an increase in price to the extent of Rs. 6,825.21/-. The Respondent was delivered the car on 19.9.95 by charging increased price of Rs. 2,10,566.33/- and taxes of Rs. 8,422.60/-thus, in all, charging Rs. 2,20,166.67/- (-) Rs. 1,88,745/- (already deposited on 28.12.94) 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.
4.	We heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute that the Complainant/first Respondent booked the car on, 28.12.94 after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,88,745/- which in the business parlance meant that it was a 'c' form price and did not include the taxes, sales-tax, dealer's commission and other handling charges at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that even as per letter dated 11.1.95, the vehicle was to be delivered within a period of 18 weeks which would expire some time in middle of May 1995. As per material on record, the Petitioner company revised the price effective from10.4.95. Thus, in our view, both the lower for a committed error by not allowing the Petitioner to charge enhanced price made effective from 10.4.95 along with the sales-tax, dealer's commission and delivery charges.
5.	We have seen the written arguments of the first Respondent/Complainant. The main argument is that vehicle was to be delivered within 18 weeks from 11.1.95. We have no dispute with this contention/plea of the Respondent/Complainant but what has to be seen is whether the price deposited was the basic price or the delivery price? Enough material has been brought on record that what was paid by the first Respondent/ Complainant was the 'basic price' of the car. It did not include the taxes like the sales- tax, dealer's commission nor the delivery price, which, in our view, cannot be denied to the Petitioner. In view of above, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission in its present form, which is modified to the extent that the Petitioner shall be free to charge the prevailing price as applicable in middle of May 1995, i.e., date when the 18 weeks period expires from 11.1.95. Petitioner shall refund the difference, if any, between the prices actually charged from the petitioner and the amount becoming due in the light of above directions. It is to be noted that the Petitioner has already paid interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of booking till the delivery of the vehicle by the Petitioner. We also uphold the grant of interest @ 7% p.a. from July 1995 to 18th September 1995 along with cost of Rs. 500/- as ordered by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. The order passed by the State Commission stands modified in above terms.
6.	The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Revision allowed in part accordingly