Mr. Justice. S.A. Shah, President.— The complainant has purchased a Maruti car for handicapped in response to the quotation letter of the opposite party dated 12.10.90 produced at Exhibit-B. The said letter quotes ex-stock price of Rs. l,24,777.83p. The delivery period mentioned is 6 to 8 weeks after making full payment. This quotation in terms defines that the purchaser has to pay full price of Rs. 1,24,777.83 p. and when the actual delivery is made he shall have to pay transportation, octroi, insurance, R.T.O. etc. which are necessary consequences if he wants these services also from Maruti Udyog.

2. It cannot be said that it is absolutely essential for the purchaser to pay for the octroi in advance. He may take the delivery at a place where it is offered and bring the car to his hometown and may take the insurance from his own insurance agent and may pay R.T.O. tax when he decides to use the car. There is no dispute that the complainant has paid full price in March, 1991 prevailing at that time i.e. Rs. 1,24,777.83 p.

3. It is true as contended by Mr. Shailesh Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party that the car is not still given. Mr. Shah who has filed his version in pursuance to our summons has raised preliminary objections that the transaction having not been completed, the complainant is not the consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Mr. Shah has also relied upon section of the Act stating that the Commission can pass the order as stated in that section only and cannot pass any other order. Mr. Shah has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (1991) CPJ 50 (NC)=1991 CPR 168 wherein the Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. V.K. Jain the present opponent was the party.

4. On reading the facts of the case it appears that the alleged consumer i.e. the appellant had booked a Maruti 800 CC car with the opposite party and has made a deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and he was assigned allotment number only. Thereafter the appellant was informed that the car against his allotment number was due for release and was called to obtain F.D.R. of Rs. 15,000/- for 91 days in his name from Bank of India. Thereafter the appellant was further informed that the balance price of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 74,063.34p. was payable and on receipt of the said amount delivery of the vehicle will be given. The appellant had furnished the fixed deposit of Rs. 15,000/- but a further amount of Rs. 75,000/- was not paid by him. In the said matter the appellant has not sought any relief on the basis that he had hired the services of the opposite party. Not any relief was claimed on the basis of alleged deficiency in the services. Hence the second part of the definition of consumer was not under consideration.

5. The Hon’ble Commission has observed that the grievances of the appellant pertain only to the revision of price by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and not the procedure governing the booking. On February 22, 1991 in consequence of which the complainant as required to furnish an F.D.R. in his own name for a total amount of Rs. 90,000/- as against the previous requirement of furnishing an F.D.R. for only Rs. 15,000/- . As observed by the Hon‘ble Commission this was essentially a matter that pertains only to an agreement for sale and if the alteration of the procedure by the Company amounted to breach of any of the terms of existing agreement between the parties, the complainant has to seek his remedy in respect of such breach only by approaching the Civil Court.

6. The appellant in that case also tried to raise the contention that the demand of Rs. 90,000/- was an unfair trade practice and, therefore, also the application was maintainable. However, such contention was not raised in the complaint and hence the complainant was not permitted to raise the same before the National Commission.

7. In our opinion, this case has no applicati