Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—Both the above appeals can be disposed of by a common order, as these arise out of the same order.

2. The brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining the point in controversy are that the complainant/ respondent who is a practising Advocate, booked a Maruti Standard Car 800CC with M/s. Modern Automobiles (appellant in Appeal No. 255 of 1997) who are authorised Dealers of M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited (appellant in Appeal No. 14 of 1998). The complainant paid the entire price by Bank Draft to M/s. Modern Automobiles, Chandigarh on 21.12.1992 as demanded by them as per their proforma invoice excluding insurance charge, as the complainant was at liberty to get the car insured himself. The complainant was told by M/s. Modern Automobiles that the manufacturers, M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited, has despatched the vehicles booked upto 17.12.1992 and within a short period, the vehicle shall be delivered to him. The amount of consideration paid by the complainant was arranged by him by borrowing from the State Bank of India, Bilaspur as loan on interest. The Dealer M/s. Modern Automobiles was approached by the complainant a number of times for delivery of the vehicle to him, but on one pretext or the other, the vehicle was not delivered until 7.1.1993 with a view to take advantage of impending price-hike. The price was increased with effect from 1.1.1993 by Rs. 4130.80p. which the complainant had to pay under compulsion on 7.1.1993 at the time of delivery of the vehicle, as he required urgently the car for personal use. M/s. Modern Automobiles as such has adopted unfair trade practice or unfair deceptive practice in the supply of the car and the complainant had to pay not only more additional amount of Rs. 4130.80p. but also the interest to the Bank and as such according to the complainant, he is entitled to interest @ 18% per annum for the period from 21.12.1992 to 7.1.1993 i.e. the same interest which he has to pay to the Bank for borrowing the amount of consideration as loan.

3. Both the appellants — M/s. Modern Automobiles and Maruti Udyog Limited —- have resisted the claim of the complainant on the ground that the delivery of the vehicle has been made to the complainant as per seniority of the booking as well as depending upon the supply of vehicles by Maruti Udyog Limited – the manufacturers and instantaneous delivery as such could not be made.

4. We have heard Mr. Rakeshwar Lal Sood, Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kanshi Ram, the complainant/ respondent in person, who also happens to be a practising Advocate and also perused the record of the case.

5. The question that requires consideration is whether at the time of making payment of entire price on 21.12.1992, there was shortage of Maruti White Car booked by the complainant and that it could not be supplied to him till 7.1.1993 due to his lower seniority or the car was deliberately or intentionally withheld by the appellants with a view to take advantage of impending price-hike.

6. We have carefully looked into the pleadings of the parties and nowhere has the case been set up by the appellants that the name of the complainant was at lower level of seniority list or that the car so booked by the complainant, namely, white car was not available for delivery till 7.1.1993 and as such there was delay in supplying such car to the complainant. The assertion made by M/s. Modern Automobiles in their pleadings is only to the extent that the delivery of the vehicles depends upon seniority of booking of each customer and supply of vehicles by M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited and instantaneous delivery cannot be made. In this context we may notice the pleadings of the complainant that on the payment of entire price to the appellant-M/s. Modern Automobiles on 21.12.1992, he was given out by M/s. Modern Automobiles that M/s. Maruti Udyog Limited has already despatched the vehicles booked upto 17.12.1992. This has not been controverted in the reply speci