Maruti Udyog Limited                                   ---  Petitioner
                                  Vs.
Mrs. Bhawana Sabharwal & Anr.                 ---  Respondents

BEFORE:Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa, President, 
               Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K.Mehra, Member
               Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member

Per Justice D.P.Wadhwa (President)

     Petitioner Maruti Udyog Ltd. was second respondent before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (District Forum) in a complaint filed by the first respondent herein. M/s Classic Motors Limited, a dealer of Maruti Udyog Ltd., was the second respondent in that complaint. The complaint was delay in supply of a motor vehicle manufactured by the petitioner of which M/s Classic Motors Limited, the second respondent now before us was the authorised dealer.

     Complainant had booked a standard Maruti Car with Classic Motors on August 17, 1994. She deposited Rs. 1,65,000/- with Classic Motors. Complainant had booked the car before her marriage, which she wanted to use after her marriage. She was promised delivery within 8 months period. This was not done. Neither Maruti Udyog Ltd. nor the dealer - Classic Motors responded to her complaints for delivery of the car to her. She said that in fact she made several personal visits as well. She got married and then she filed a complaint against Classic Motors and Maruti Udyog Ltd., being the dealer and manufacturer of the car. She complained that persons who had booked the car after the date of her booking had been delivered cars. She complained unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. She wanted delivery of the car with interest @ 24% per annum. She made other claims as well for expenses incurred by her towards telephone calls, personal visits and also for the mental agony and tension undergone by her.

     District Forum by order dated 17.11.2000 directed the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd. to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 17.8.94. Complainant was also awarded costs of Rs. 1,000/-. District Forum held that non-refund of the amount deposited by complainant constituted deficiency in service. It is also held that Classic Motors were not liable as its agency/dealership had been terminated by Maruti Udyog Ltd. and the money was transferred to Maruti Udyog Ltd.

     Aggrieved, Maruti Udyog Ltd. filed appeal before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission). By order dated 16.2.2001 State Commission held that the appeal was barred by limitation. It went into even merit of the case and after examining the matter affirmed the order of the District Forum. State Commission noticed that it was admitted by Maruti Udyog Ltd. that bank draft deposited by the complainant with the Classic Motors on account of a portion of advance money for the car was in fact in favour of the Maruti Udyog Ltd. State Commission also noticed the contention of Classic Motors that the payment received by it from the complainant was forwarded to the petitioner, Maruti Udyog Ltd. which fact was not denied either before the State Commission or before the District Forum by the petitioner.

     These are all findings of fact. We find no ground to interfere in the order of the State Commission in our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Act. One more contention was raised by the Maruti Udyog Ltd. before the State Commission that District Forum was not right in directing refund of Rs. 1,65,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum when no such prayer was made in the complaint and what the complainant wanted was the car and interest @ 24% on the amount of cost of the car. It was contended that instead petitioner had been directed to refund the amount with interest @ 18% per annum. This contention in our view was rightly rejected by the State Commission. Forum established under the Consumer Protection Act is not a civil court which is to be guided strictly by the pleadings. Maruti Udyog Ltd. would not have delivered the car at the same price that was exiting during the promised period of 8 months. National Commission has observed in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohan Lal and sons [1986-96 Consumer 1685 (NS)] that the forum under the Act is to protect the interest of the consumer and can grant relief on the basis of the facts in the complaint considering the overall circumstances of the case.

     We therefore, find no merit in the petition and it is dismissed.