Per Justice Mr.S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:

Heard.  This appeal takes an exception to an order passed in consumer complaint no.114/2006 decided by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban on 11/05/2010. Complaint filed by the complainant stood dismissed.  We are considering this appeal in following circumstances:

        Basically there is delay of 24 days in filing the appeal.  In delay condonation application it has been stated that at the time of service of the impugned order the appellant was at his native place for marriage ceremony and when he came back to Mumbai on 15/06/2010, he came to know about the order passed in the said matter and thereafter, he took advice of his advocate and after taking advice, given instruction for preferring appeal and thereafter  he has filed this appeal.  Therefore, the delay be condoned.  The order in question was passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on 11/05/2010. It was dispatched to the complainant/appellant on 18/05/2010 by dispatch number 589.  Therefore, in normal circumstances the order must have been received by the complainant.  Complainant himself states that he has received the order on 21/05/2010 which is normal circumstances.  What is important to be considered is that, if the order is received on 21/05/2010, the appeal ought to have been filed on 22/06/2010.  Therefore assuming that he returned on 15/06/2010, he was having ample time, namely, five days to file an appeal as against the said order.  Apart from that the ground which is stated  in the application is absolutely a vague one.  Appellant nowhere states what is the name of his native place and when he proceeded to said native place.  He has only given a date when he had returned from his native place i.e. 15/06/2010 and as analyzed limitation to file the appeal was still there, namely, five days.  What was the difficulty after 15/06/2010 to 21/6/2010 that is not explained nowhere in the application.  Apart from that he has further stated that he had been to the native place for the marriage ceremony but no particulars of the marriage ceremony are stated in the application.  Much more even the marriage invitation card also have not been produced on record.  Therefore, the ground which has been made out to condone the delay is not sufficient cause and hence, application for  condonation of delay stands rejected.

        By way of abundant precaution not only on technical ground of delay, we heard Ld.Counsel for the appellant on merit also. 

        The grievance of the appellant is that he has purchased Maruti Versa DX-2 car and it his grievance that in the advertisement which was published by the respondent, it was stated that there was Twin AC facility given to said car.  However, after purchase of car it was found that there was only one AC therefore, grievance is made that he is mislead by an advertisement. We find that advertisement is simplicitor an invitation to offer as per Contract Act.  It was for the appellant since he purchased the vehicle to get it verified and also whether it has Twin AC as per the advertisement.  If it is found that it is not having Twin AC, immediately he should have made grievance or should not have purchased the vehicle.  However, he has purchased the vehicle on 27/04/2004 and filed the consumer complaint on 02/03/2006.  Thus, after having used the vehicle for approximately period of two years, the grievance is made in Consumer Forum. 

        Therefore, what we find that, the decision of the appellant to file the coplaint is after thought.  In fact, the vehicle should have been purchased after it was inspected in the showroom and Ld.Counsel for the appellant states that complainant had been to the showroom and if he had been to the showroom, he should have asked the dealer what are the accessories available in the car as per the advertisement published.  Now it will not be open for them to show that advertising is misleading etc.  It is to be noted that in the said advertisement it has been stated that Maruti reserves the right to change without notice, prices, colours, equipment, specifications and models and also to discontinue models.  Accessories shown in the picture may not be part of the standard equipment.  This was sufficient question to be asked, when he had been to the  showroom, whether all the accessories and model was/is as per the advertisement because right had been reserved to change the model without notice.  Therefore, if advertisement shows that there are Twin AC and subsequent they have modified the model and converted, it is permissible for them in view of the note given in the advertisement and therefore, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has rightly passed the order.  No interference is called for.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                :-ORDER-:

1.           Appeal stands rejected.

2.           No order as to costs.

3.           Dictated on dais.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.