Mr. Justice P.M. Chauhan, President — The complainant booked one Premier 137-D taxi with the opponent and deposited the amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 28.11.1991 and then deposited the amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- on 10.8.92 but the delivery of the car was not given by the opponent till 28.12.92 when the complaint was filed and, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint for directing the opponent to deliver the Premier 137-D taxi or to return the amount of Rs. 1,84,137/- with 18% interest on that amount and the cost.

2. The opponent by written statement (Exh. 5) while admitting the receipt of the amount of Rs. 1,84,137/-stated that the delivery of the Premier 137-D was given on 6.1.93 and denied the liability to pay the interest or cost or compensation. The other contentions are that the complainant is not the customer and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

3. Shri J.C. Goswami, the learned advocate for the complainant admitted that the delivery of the Premier 137-D taxi is given on 6.1.93 but asserted for the compensation for the loss of interest as the opponent failed to deliver the car within short time after making full payment for the price of the car. It is asserted by Shri J.C. Goswami that the opponent had agreed to pay 9% interest on the deposit irrespective of the date of delivery and has also agreed that the delivery of the car will be given as early as possible and within six weeks from the date of submitting the papers.

4. The opponent vide letter dated November 14, 1991 (Exh.1.3) invited the customers for booking the Premier Padmini and in that letter stated that they will get 9% interest on the deposit and that deposit is refundable on cancellation of the order booking. It is also stated in the letter that the booking is transferrable at the time of maturity for paying service charges. According to the complainant the amount of Rs. 15,000/-was deposited on 28.11.91 and in normal circumstances the complainant is entitled to the interest @9% on the amount of the deposit. The remaining amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- was deposited on 10.8.92. The complainant is also entitled to interest @ 9% on that amount. By pro-forma invoice dated July 15, 1992 (Exh.15) the opponent informed that the car will be delivered as early as possible. The complainant, therefore, deposited the amount of Rs. 1,69,137/- on August 10,1992. In the letter dated May 26, 1992 (Exh.12) the opponent informed the complainant that the complainant will be offered the car from the next available lot provided the other formalities are complied with within six weeks from the date of the letter. It is also stated that the interest accrued on the booking amount, if applicable, will be settled at the time of delivery of the vehicle. The formalities i.e. documents were required to be submitted within six weeks from the date of the letter. It is, therefore, clear that by that letter delivery of the vehicle was assured within six weeks from the date of the letter i.e. on or about 15th July, 1992. According to the complainant the documents were furnished and all required formalities were completed by July, 22, 1992. Considering the period of six weeks from the compliance of the formalities, the delivery should have been given at least by September 10, 1992.

It is admitted that the complainant entered into agreement with another person on December 31, 1992 for transferring the car which is permissible under the contract and ultimately the car is delivered on 6.1.1993 to the person with whom the complainant entered into agreement for delivery. By not delivering the car in time as promised, inspite of taking the deposit to the extent of the full value of the car in advance, the deficiency in service was committed by the opponent. Deficiency means even the manner of the performance which was undertaken to be performed by the opponent in pursuance of the contract. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to the compensation for the deficiency in service by t