Thiru Justice S.A. Kader, President— This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The jumbled facts of this complaint are, these:—

The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for the purchase of Hero Honda Motor-cycle. He approached the 2nd Opposite Party for a loan under Hire Purchase Agreement, dated 30.12.89. The grievance of the Complainant is that the loan amount was not released immediately. It was released only on 1.2.90. When the Complainant contacted Opposite Party No. 1, he was informed that the price has already gone up from Rs. 22,760/- to Rs. 23,465.75 and subsequently, from Rs. 23,465.75 to 24,461.76. The 2nd Opposite Party offered to give Rs. 1,701/- as additional loan. The 1st Opposite Party wrote the Vehicle Number Plate wrongly and refused the third free service. The Opposite Party No. 2 threatened the Complainant and Guarantor for payment of the instalments. The Complainant had to vacate his house at Thiruvarmlyur and go from place to place to avoid the harassments from Opposite Party No. 2 and his men. The 3rd Opposite Party is Dunlop India Limited and is alleged that the rear wheel tyre was defective. The 4th Opposite Party is the Insurer. It failed to settle the claim of the accident on 8.4.92. The Complainant has, therefore, come forward with this claim for various reliefs against the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 separately.

3. The 1st Opposite Party contended that the price payable by the purchaser is the price prevailing at the time of the delivery and hence there was nothing wrong in collecting the enhanced price. The allegation about the defective speedo meter and number plate are denied. The Complainant did not come for 3rd free service. He was not supplied of defective motor-cycle nor there was any deficiency in service.

4. The 2nd Opposite Party denied all the allegations. It contended that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, the amount has been paid and the Complainant defaulted. It is denied that the Opposite Party No. 2 and its men harassed the Complainant and the members of his family and the Complainant has to shift from place to place.

5. The 3rd Opposite Party remained absent and was set ex-parte.

6. The 4th Opposite Party Insurer contended that the Complainant had never made any claim with this Opposite Party.

7. Exhibits A1 to A6 and B1 to B27 are marked by consent. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

8. The point for consideration is whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of any of the Opposite Parties and to what relief, if any, the Complainant entitled.

9. Point : The Complainant has come forward with the allegations of a jumbled nature. His allegations against each of the Opposite Parties are different and the reliefs are also different. As rightly contended by the Opposite Parties, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action.

10. The grievance against the 1st Opposite Party is that (i) it collected increased price; (ii) the number plate was wrongly written; (iii) Speedo meter was defective; and (iv) third free service was not done. It has been repeatedly held by this Commission as well as by the National Commission that the price of an article sold is the price prevailing at the time of the delivery and the Complainant can make no grievance of it. The other allegations are not at all proved satisfactorily. The claim against the 1st Opposite Party must fail.

11. The claim against the 2nd Opposite Party is that its men threatened the Complainant and the Guarantor and attempted to seize the vehicle for the non-payment of the installments. The Complainant was forced to shift his residence from place to place. This has resulted heavy financial loss and mental agony. It is also alleged that the 2nd Opposite Party lodged a false case against the Complainant. All these allegations, even if truth, cannot be the subject matter of the complaint before this Commission. The Compla