G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. Through the medium of this appeal order dated 03.02.1994, passed by the Learned Divisional Forum Jammu (shortly `Forum' hereinafter) has been challenged. The complaint of the appellant has been dismissed by the Forum. According to the appellant the impugned order is bad in law and against the facts. Therefore he has prayed for setting aside the same. 2. The facts which had given rise to the filing of the complaint are that the appellant (complainant before the Forum) had booked Maruti 800 Car with respondent no. 1 on 11.03.1991 after paying Rs. 1,12,702.71 towards its price. The delivery of the vehicle was to be effected 6-7 months later. The car was delivered to the appellant in September 1991 after charging Rs. 49,000/- more from him, on the plea that prices of the vehicle had escalated. The case of the appellant was that respondents could not charge the alleged exaggerated price from him because he was to be given the vehicle at the price prevalent when he had booked the car on making full payment; and not at the cost price prevailing at the time of making delivery. He had claimed a refund of Rs. 49,000/- from the respondents. 3. The respondents contested the complaint before the Learned Forum on various grounds viz. the complaint did not fall within the ambit of the J & K Consumer Protection Act (shortly the Act hereinafter). The Forum had no jurisdiction to try the matter. On merits, they had contended that the cost of vehicle chargeable was the one that prevailed at the time of the delivery and not when the vehicle was booked as the parties had executed an agreement to that effect. That the cost price of the car in question had escalated on account of increase in Central excise duty ordered by the G.O.I on 25.07.1991 and it had become inevitable for them to charge more. The Learned Forum examined the matter in detail with respect to the claim of the appellant and objections thereto raised by the respondents. It has arrived at the conclusion that the dispute centred around to the controversy for the refund of the alleged excess cost price of the vehicle in question which involved controversial facts and could not be decided in a summary manner by the Forum. It has arrived at the conclusion that the dispute centred around to the controversy for the refund of the alleged excess cost price of the vehicle in question which involved controversial facts and could not be decided in a summary manner by the Forum. The Forum after holding so did not leave the matter there but dealt with the factual aspects of the case as well. Ultimately, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 4. We have waited for the appearance of the complainant up to 1:30 p.m but he has not appeared. We propose to decide the case on merits in his absence as the appeal is pending disposal since 02.03.1994. The perusal of the record shows that Mr. O.P. Thakur had stopped appearing for the respondents from 12.10.1995. Since the matter is quite old so we propose to dispose of it in his absence. 5. Admittedly it is a case of refund of Rs. 49,000/-, which according to the appellant has been wrongly charged from him by the respondents as he was entitled to purchase the Motor Vehicle at its booking value. According to the respondents, it was the actual market price of sale of the Motor vehicle in question at the time of its delivery. Reference, in this regard, has been made by them to the contents of the order of "Booking Form" executed by the dealer and the customer, i.e. the respondents and the appellant. The said document in original is on the file of the Forum. Backside of it reveals condition (No.3) which is to the effect that the price prevailing at the time of delivery of the vehicle would be applicable. The appellant has signed the "Booking Form". His witness Sardarilal says but the appellant signed the form in his presence. The Learned Forum has rightly stated that the appellant being an advocate it cannot be said that he was forced to put his signature on the blank paper or had filled and signed the form without reading its contents. 6. It has not been the case of the appellant that the respondents took undue time to deliver the vehicle to him. He has admitted that the dealer i.e. Respondent No. 1 told him at the time of booking that the vehicle will be delivered within the period. 6. It has not been the case of the appellant that the respondents took undue time to deliver the vehicle to him. He has admitted that the dealer i.e. Respondent No. 1 told him at the time of booking that the vehicle will be delivered within the period. Therefore the authority referred to by the appellant reported in 1993 (3) Consumer Protection Reports, 611 (Kanakpuri Gangapuri Goswami v. Mehsana Agro-machinery Gujarat Consumer Redressal Commission) will not help his cause. 7. The respondents in their written version have specifically averred that increase in the cost of the vehicle was necessitated on account of increase in Central Excise Duty w.e.f 25.07.1991, to the extent of 10%. There is no denial to this averment on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the respondents were justified in charging additional amount from the appellant for the sale of the vehicle. Support in this regard can be had from an authority of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 11 (1991) CJP 221 (K.L. Jani v. M/S Alfa Automobiles). Facts whereof are almost identical with those of the one at hand. 8. The Learned Forum has held the complainant not maintainable on the reference of the definition of "complaint" given in Sec. 2 (1) of the J & K State Consumer Protection Act. According to the Learned Forum the present matter on the available facts does not qualify to be termed as complaint. In this regard a reference has been made to a decision rendered by HS National Commission on 12.10.1992 in a Revision Petition No: 50 of 1992, titled Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Kodaikkanal Township & Others. We have gone through the P.C copy of this judgment which is on file of the Learned Forum and come to the conclusion that view of the Learned Forum is unimpeachable on this count. 9. In the backdrop of the discussion made above we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed as meritless. There is no order as to costs. The record of the Forum be returned at once. The appeal is consigned to records.