Y. Krishan, J. ( 1 ) THESE are appeals against the order of 3rd July. 1992 of the State Commission of Tamil Nadu in Case No. O. P. 157 of 1991. As these appeals are against the same order, we propose to dispose them of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3. M/s Annamalal Bus Transport Ltd. had receiyed an initial deposit of Rs. 25,000. 00 in December 1989 from the complainant petitioner for the purpose of supplying a Maniti 1000 CC Car to her. However, the car was not dilivered within two weeks from the date of payment as claimed by the Petitioner though there was no written commitment regarding the dale of delivery on the part of the supplier. The State Commission after considering the contentions of the parties came to the conclusion that delivery of the car was a service to be rendered by the dealer and that the delay in the delivery constitutes a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice within the meaning of the Section 35a (1) (ii) of the M. R. T. P. Act. ( 3 ) ON this ground the State Commission directed the Opposite Party and the dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 18,564. 00 as interest on the initial deposit amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 and on Rs. 3,12,860. 00 paid prior to obtaining the car. ( 4 ) AT the hearing the Respondent in Appeal No. 74 of 1992 and in Appeal No. 95 of 1992 did not appear either personally or through the counsel. The commission, however, heard the counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No. 74 of 1992 and also took on record the written arguments submitted at the hearing. The counsel for the Appellant in Appeal No. 74 of 1992 pleaded that this was a case of sale of goods simpliciter (car ). There was no service to be rendered nor was there any hiring of service either of the manufacturer or of the dealer. To drive the point home, he emphasised that the cause of action has arisen due to the delay in delivery of goods and the relief claimed is also by way of interest on the price of the goods and the advance given for the purchase of the car. He. To drive the point home, he emphasised that the cause of action has arisen due to the delay in delivery of goods and the relief claimed is also by way of interest on the price of the goods and the advance given for the purchase of the car. He. further averred that delay in delivery is not a dficiency in service, it can only constitute a breach of contract in sale of goods, where delivery is the essence of the contract. ( 5 ) IT is not necessary for us to go into the matter further. We have no doubt that this is a case of sale of goods simpliciter and it does not involve rendering of any service for consideration: there was no hiring of service. In the result, both the appeals succeed. The order of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.