S.K.M. Lodha, President — Against the order dated i6.3.1989 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 78/89, the complainant-appellant has filed this appeal under S. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, (“the Act” hereinafter). The complaint was submitted before the District Forum on 11.4.1989. It was alleged by the complainant that he had placed order with the opposite party for supply of a Maruti 800 Deluxe car on February 6,1989. The full amount of the price of the car Rs. 1,24,930/- was paid vide D.D. No. 646184 dated Fabruary 6,1989 drawn on UCO Bank, Bani Park, Jaipur. Receipt No. 1008 dated 6.2.1989 for the aforesaid amount was issued to the complainant. The complainant is said to have approached the opposite parties several times. Vide delivery note No. 89/34 dated March 17, 1989 the car was delivered to the complainant by the opposite party. It is stated, by the complainant that an additional sum of Rs. 10,116/- on the pretext of the increase in excise duty on the car as announced by the Finance Minister while presenting the Budget to the Parliament on February 28,1989 was realised. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party might have indulged in profiteering by pocketing extra money by reason of additional exise duty even on cars available in the stock either at the godown or elsewhere held by their principles. As averment was made that according to law additional excise duty or higher excise duty is chargeable only on goods cleared by the manufacturer after declaration of excise proposals and, therefore, the opposite party should have provided the car at the price of Rs. 1,24,930/- which he had already paid. It was prayed by the complainant that a direction for the refund of Rs. 10,116/- to the complainant by the opposite party together with one month and 11 days interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 1,24,930/- may be issued. A prayer for penal action pgainst the opposite party for wilfully defrauding the public by making false promises, taking full amount of car value under pretext of ready availability even when cars were not physically available with them was made. The complainant submitted with the complaint photostat copies of receipts, delivery note and invoice.

2. An application was filed on behalf of the opposite party on 12.6.1989 challenging the jurisdiction of District Forum, Jaipur to entertain the complaint praying that the complaint should be dismissed with costs. The District Forum by order dated 1.7.1989 repelled the objection regarding the jurisdiction. Thereafter, the opposite party submitted its version of the ease dated 10.7.1989 contesting the complaint on various grounds. It was submitted that the car was delivered to the complainant as soon as the opposite party got it from the Company. The opposite party was not having ready car at the time when the amount was paid by the complainant. The complainant agreed that the payment made by him may be accepted according to the current price and it was subject to change without notice, difference due tax, duty and other levies whatsoever shall be paid by the complainant before taking delivery of the vehicle. After depositing Rs. 1,24,930/- on 26.2.1989 the Union Govt. had prepared the Central Budget which was presented in the Parliament on 28.2.1989. The Union Govt. had increased the excise duty on the vehicles manufactured by the Maruti Udyog. As the car was delivered to the opposite party on 17.3.1989 when the excise duty has already been increased, additional amount of Rs. 10,116/- and other taxes were recovered from the complainant. The opposite party with the version of the case submitted photostat copies of the forwarding letter 174-3029, invoice, gate pass for removal of excisable goods from a factory or warehouse on payment of duly. The complainant submitted affidavit dated 6.11.1989 in support of the complaint. On behalf of the opposite parly, affidavit of Sales Manager dated 23.1.1990 was submitted. A list of Deluxe