By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:<br /> The complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The gist of the complaint is as follows:<br /> The complainants bought a Tempo Traveler numbered KL-9/C 3868 owned by the 1st opposite party. The sale agreement was made on 6.8.2001, the total price of the vehicle was fixed at Rs.3,40,000/- and the amount payable to the financier was fixed at Rs.1,17,500/- as on 6.8.01, and the balance amount of Rs.2,22,500/- was agreed to be paid to the opposite parties. <br /> Contd...2)<br /> 2.<br /> The complainants had paid a sum of Rs.1,15,500/- on the same day itself. The complainant was made to believe that the vehicle was 1996 model and was running in profit. The complainant and opposite parties were friends and the complainants relied on the assurance given by the opposite parties. The complainants have paid the entire amount agreed to the opposite parties. The original RC book was handed over to the complainant and to the surprise of them, the model of vehicle was shown as 1995. When the complainant was about to close the loan, the financier told them that instead of 36 installments, they have mentioned only 30 installments on the repayment chart and 6 more installments of Rs.7,500/- each were to be remitted by the complainants. The mistake was due to the over sight on the part of the financier's office staff. The financier told the complainant that the corrected chart was issued to the opposite parties and they have not returned the previous chart. The financier demanded the production of old chart from the complainants. But the opposite parties have not handed over the chart to the complainants. The complainants informed the matter to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties scolded the complainants and threatened them with dare consequences. So the complainants paid Rs.66,000/-(Which includes the principal and overdue interest) to the financier ie. OP3. For closing the loan the complainants have availed another loan of <br /> Rs.92,000/- from another financier, M/s K Ashok Kumar Bkdadia in Madras. The loan was closed on 19.12.2003 and the complainant had to pay Rs.6,000/- as loan expense also. There is gross unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Because of the misrepresentation of the vehicle model as 1996 instead of 1995, there is a loss of Rs.70,000/-(Seventy thousand only) to the complainant. The misrepresentation and suppression of the real loan amount has caused a loss of Rs.98,000/- to the complainants apart from mental tensions, sufferings and difficulties. So the complainants pray for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,73,000/ with interest at 18% Rs.25,000/- as compensation, and other costs.<br /> 3<br /> 2. The power of attorney holder of 1st and 2nd opposite parties appeared and filed version. They admited that the total price was fixed at Rs.3,40,000/- the amount payable to the financiers was Rs.1,17,500/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,22,000/- was received in installments by the 1st and 2nd opposite party's. The vehicle model was mentioned in the agreement by mistake as 1996. The model of the vehicle was displayed on several external parts of the vehicle such as frond glass, inside door etc. So there is no question of suppression of facts. About the payment of additional installments to the financier, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties have no knowledge or responsibility. As per records the payment to the financier is made by the 4th opposite party, <br /> the earlier possessor of the vehicle. There is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st or 2nd opposite parties. So they pray for an order dismissing the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The 1st complainant was examined as PW1 Mr. Sunny, the agent of M/s Ashok Kumar Bokadia was examined as PW2. Ext. A1 to Ext. A8 are marked on the side of the complainant.<br /> The power of attorney holder of 1st and 2nd opposite parties are examined as OPW1. Ext. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The issues in consideration are as follows:<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice <br /> on the side of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2 Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief<br /> <br /> <br /> 3.Point No.1:In the case, relief is sought mainly against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The 1st complaint against them is that they have shown the vehicle model as 1996 whereas the real model is 1995. In the complaint itself the complainants have stated that they were the drivers of the disputed vehicle and were close to the opposite parties. PW1 in his deposition has <br /> Contd...4)<br /> 4<br /> stated that he himself has got the agreement written at his own cost. In the complaint it is seen that the complainant came to know about the real model of vehicle as 1995, only when he received the RC Book(Ext. A3), but in RC Book itself, the model is seen as 1995. The last digit can be read as 6 or 5. So if there is a correction in Ext. A3, it is not made by the opposite parties. The model of a vehicle is shown in several parts of the vehicle as contented by the opposite party. The chart Ext. A2 and A4 also shows the model of the vehicle as 1995. So there is no concealment about the model of the vehicle. The second allegation against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties is that there is misrepresentation and suppression of the real loan amount by the opposite parties. The complaint itself shows that the mistake in the 1st chart Ext. A2 was due to oversight of the staff of OP3. OP3 has informed this matter to the complainants and the new chart Ext. A4 is issued to them. Complainants allegation is that the 1st and 2nd opposite parties had suppressed the matter of 36 installments and represented that there were only 30 installments. The sale agreement between the complainants and 1st and 2nd opposite parties were on 6.8.2001. Ext. B1` shows that the matter; of 6 additional installments was disclosed by the 3rd opposite party on 15.10.2003. In Ext B1 OP3 admits that only 30 installments were shown in the chart issued by them at the time of the hire purchase. Installments were made 36 as per Ext. B1 Ext.B1, copy of Ext. B1 is sent to the complainants also. For the error on the part of the 3rd opposite party,1st and 2nd opposite parties cannot be held responsible. So there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. As per Ext. A4, the corrected chart and payment schedule, the agreement balance is 61,000/- additional hire charge is 37,197.36 and including other charges, the total amount payable is 1,00,197.36. The 3rd opposite party has reduced this amount to Rs. 66,000/- The proof affidavit filed by the complainants shows that the hire purchase loan was settled through mediation, paying Rs.66,000/-, Loan is settled and there is no specific prayer against the 3rd opposite party. Hence point No1 is held <br /> Contd..5)<br /> 5<br /> infavour of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.2: As there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, and no specific prayer against the 3rd opposite party the complainant is not entitled for any relief.<br /> Hence the complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on the day of 17th June 2008.