Per Justice Shri S.B.Mhase, Hon’ble President:-

          Heard Adv.Mr.Chetan Patil for the appellant.

          This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in a consumer complaint no. 10/213 on 27/09/2010.  By this order the appellant/org.opponent has been directed to give a delivery of two wheeler vehicle-Hero Honda Fashion Plus Drum-Cast wheel to the respondent/complainant.  The appellant is further directed to pay an amount of `5,000/- by way of mental and physical harassment and  `1,000/- by way of cost.  The appellant is a dealer of Hero Honda Company operating in the area of Kolhapur and he is having dealership   of two wheeler vehicles.  The respondent was desirous   of purchasing the two wheeler vehicle of Hero Honda company, model- Hero Honda Fashion Plus Drum-Cast wheel.  In respect of this vehicle the appellant had given a quotation for an amount of `47,235/-.  As against the said quotation, the respondent has deposited an amount of `5,000/- with the appellant on 06/01/2010.  Thereafter, on the basis of this quotation the respondent approached Kolhapur Mahila Co-operative Bank Ltd. and said bank has advanced loan of `42,235/- on 16/2/2010 by cheque of 006179.  Said cheque was issued in the name of appellant and appellant has also received said amount.  It appears that there was deficiency of `780/- and therefore, the appellant paid the amount on 03/02/2010 and thus, the total consideration as per quotation was paid by the respondent.  Since the total consideration was received by the appellant/ opponent on 03/02/2010, the appellant ought to have given sale receipt to the respondent.  However, on the said date, delivery of the vehicle was not given to the respondent.  It appears that on subsequent date also the delivery was not given.  Therefore,  the complainant/respondent filed a complaint before District Consumer Redressal Forum. Said complaint was filed on or about 03/04/2010.  Under these circumstances, the complaint was allowed.

          Ld.Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that after receipt of the amount, sale certificate has been issued in favour of the complaint on 08/03/2010 which is required to be given under rule no.47 (a) and (d) being the Form no.21 of Motor Vehicle Act.  It is addressed to R.T.O.  It appears that on 06/03/2010 the tax invoice was prepared.  However, these are the secondary documents.  What is required to be prepared by the dealer for sale is the sale receipt which is a basic document.  That sale receipt is not on record and it is not produced by the appellant/opponent   at any point of time on record.  Today also Ld.Counsel for the appellant produced on record a receipts dated 06/01/2010,22/02/2010 and 03/03/2010 respectively for an amount of `5,000/-, `42,235/- and `780/-.  But even after receipt of these amounts, the sale receipt was never prepared by the appellant.  It is interesting to note that when the vehicle was booked it has been stated on receipt dated 05/01/2010 that the delivery of the vehicle will be given approximately in 30-45 days.  That shows that the date on which the vehicle was booked, the appellant was not in possession of the vehicle for the purpose of delivery.  It is to be noted that before 45 days the total amount has been received by the appellant and therefore, since the day one amount was received, the assurance about delivery of the vehicle within 45 days, supra, is not kept.  The appellants was under obligation to make immediate delivery.  Now, the question arises that as to why the delivery could not take place.  Ld.Counsel for the appellant states that appellant was ready and willing to give delivery but it is the respondent/complainant who had not accepted the delivery.  As against that there is statement of the respondent/complainant that delivery of the vehicle was not given.  Both the parties had filed affidavits on record.  However, the person who purchases the vehicle by raising loan is desirous of getting the delivery of the vehicle and if the dealer is ready to give delivery of the vehicle, why the complainant should have accepted delivery of the vehicle.  Purchase of vehicle is a very important incidence in life of any person and therefore, no one is interested in having litigation when he purchases the vehicle, that too after raising loan.  On the contrary, it appears from the documents that the vehicle was not available on 03/03/2010 when the entire amount was paid by the complainant/purchaser. Only certain signatures were taken on certain document by the appellant.  However, taking signatures and registration of the vehicle is always a matter for the dealer and in anticipation that dealer will hand over the vehicle; those documents are signed by the complainant.  That does not mean that vehicle was available with the appellant for delivery to the consumer. 

          What we find that this complaint has been rightly disposed of by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Complainant has been deprived of the vehicle for a pretty long time.  So far as the direction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for delivery of vehicle is concerned, there is no dispute.  The grievance raised by the appellant by filing this appeal is about the compensation which is awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for amount of `5,000/-.  However, the fact remains that the vehicle was not given to the complainant from 03/03/2010 till the decision of the complaint.  Now, Ld.Counsel for the appellant makes a statement that after decision of complaint, delivery of the vehicle is given to the respondent/complainant.  Since the complainant is not before us, we cannot ascertain said fact. Even assuming that vehicle is given to the complainant, said fact will not relive the appellant from the compensation which has been imposed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.  On the contrary, when the appellant was willing to hand over the delivery of the vehicle, he should have produced the vehicle before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the day of his appearance instead of making an eyewash by making an oral statement that he was/is ready to deliver the vehicle.  Therefore, we find that there is no substance in the appeal.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-: 

1.                 Appeal is hereby rejected.

2.                 No order as to costs.

3.                 Dictated on dais.

4.                 Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties as per rules.