By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. The case of the complainant is that he booked for purchase of a bus chasis from first opposite party by paying an advance of Rs.5,272/- on 16-2-2005. At the time of booking first opposite party had assured to deliver the chasis by the end of February, 2005 or at the latest by the first week of March, 2005. It is stated that first opposite party failed to deliver the chasis within the time assured. The price quoted in the proforma invoice issued to complainant was Rs.6,13,272/-. Complainant obtained loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from second opposite party towards payment of purchase price. The amount was disbursed by second opposite party to first opposite party on 26-3-2005. Though this amount was received first opposite party failed to deliver the chasis as promised. Complainant already started body building work. Thereafter second opposite party had realized Rs.16,050/- towards the first instalment on 02-5-2005. Complainant was put in a position to pay instalments even before receiving the chasis. As per advice of officers of second opposite party complainant cancelled the booking and gave a written letter to second opposite party to close the loan. Second opposite party promised to return the signed cheque leaves and documents after closing and settling the account. That second opposite party credited only Rs.18,657/- tot he account of the complainant after closing the loan and has illegally realised Rs.13,448/-. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service against both opposite parties claiming Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation, for refund of Rs.13,443/- along with interest and costs.

2. First opposite party who is the dealer has filed version admitting that complainant had approached opposite party for purchase of bus chasis. It is stated that the approximate value was quoted in proforma invoice which was subject to change for many reasons. It is further submitted that though complainant booked the same on 16-2-2005 there was no assurances made for quick delivery. That the particular model opted by the complainant was a relatively new model and the production of the same had commenced only in April, 2005. Thus opposite party had not given any exact date regarding delivery and opposite party could never give any such date. The allegation that body building work had commenced is denied as false. The contention that the chasis was delivered to another person is also denied. Proper reply was issued to the letter of the complainant. That opposite party is unaware about the dealings with second opposite party. That there were no promises made by first opposite party as alleged in complaint. On 13-01-2005 complainant was given proforma invoice. On 16-02-2005 he booked the vehicle by signing vehicle purchase application. On 26-3-2005 he came again and submitted demand draft and the booking was effect in the name of complainant. The conditions in the vehicle purchase application are binding on the complainant. During June, 2005 the vehicle was ready for delivery. Though complainant was informed to take delivery he wanted cancellation of the booking. Though it was difficult for opposite party to arrange another buyer opposite party managed to sell the same. On 27-6-2005 the amount was returned to second opposite party. That there is no deficiency in service and complaint is to be dismissed.

3. Second opposite party who is a bank filed version admitting that complainant had availed a vehicle loan for Rs.6,00,000/- by executing an agreement on 23-3-2005. As per the agreement the amount was to be repaid in 42 EMI of Rs.14,050/- each. The loan was disbursed on 23-3-2005. As agreed in the agreement two EMIs of Rs.16,050/- were cleared on 02-5-2005 and 02-6-2005. After a period of 114 day of the disbursal of loan complainant approached opposite party requesting to cancel the loan. As per the written letter of complainant the loan was cancelled. An amount of Rs.18,657/- was refunded to complainant on 16-8-2005 after deducting the interest @ 6.64% for 114 days and an amount of Rs.1,000/- as loan cancellation charges. The other allegations are denied as false. That there is no deficiency in service and complaint may be dismissed.

4. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 marked for him. Counter affidavit filed by first opposite party and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for first opposite party. Second opposite party filed counter affidavit and Ext.B3 to B6 marked for second opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

6. Point (i):-

The main allegation levelled against first opposite party is that the chasis was not delivered within the time assured. Refuting this allegation first opposite party has submitted that the exact date of delivery of chasis was never promised. Apart from the vague affirmation in the affidavit there is no evidence adduced by complainant to substantiate his contention that first opposite party assured to deliver the chasis within end of February, 2005 or at the latest on the 1^st week of March, 2005. Opposite party placed reliance on Ext.B1 which is the vehicle purchase application. On the reverse side of ext.Ext.B1 the terms and conditions of sale are printed both in English language and regional language (malayalam). This is signed by the complainant. Complainant has not disputed this document.

“No guarantee attaches to the date of delivery. The company cannot hold themselves responsible for delays arising from causes beyond their control and competence. In any event, delay shall not be admitted as a valid ground for rejection of the chasis/vehicles ordered or claim of interest, compensation etc.....”

7. Ext.B1 proves the contention of opposite party to be correct. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that first opposite party committed deficiency in service by causing delay in delivery of chasis is untenable. The allegation raised against second opposite party is that the Bank collected Rs.13,447/- in excess illegally. Second opposite party has controverted these allegations by submitting that an amount of Rs.18,657/- was credited to the account of complainant on cancellation of loan by him. The amount of Rs.6,00,000/- was disbursed on 23-3-2005. That interest @ 6.64% for 114 days along with Rs.1,000/- towards loan cancellation charges was realized which was payable by complainant as per terms and conditions of agreement. Ext.B4 is the loan agreement. Complainant is definitely bound by the conditions of this agreement. The loan was disbursed on 23-3-2005. As per the statement of first opposite party the amount was returned to second opposite party on 27-6-2005. Then complainant is liable to pay two EMI during this period. The amount of two EMI would be Rs.32,100/-. Second opposite party has refunded Rs.18,657/- after deducting Rs.13,443/- as interest. We do not see any illegality in the act of opposite party. Complainant has not produced any account statement to show the illegality in the amount realized by second opposite party. The contention of the complainant is not supported by any reliable evidence. Complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties.

8. In the result, this complaint fails. We do not make any order as to costs. We however direct that second opposite party is restrained from using the signed cheque leaves handed over at the time of availing the loan.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1

Ext.A1 : Lawyer notice dated, 06-9-2005 by complainant's counsel

to opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B6

Ext.B1 : Vehicle Purchase Application by complainant to first opposite party.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the reply notice issued by first opposite party

to complainant's counsel.

Ext.B3 : Vehicle Loan Application Form by complainant to second opposite party.

Ext.B4 : Agreement for vehicle loan and guarantee between complainant and

opposite party

Ext.B5 : Letter from complainant to second opposite party.

Ext.B6 : Blank declaration by complainant to second opposite party.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER