The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant on going through an advertisement came to know that Nano car being newly launched are offered for sale at free insurance and free registration upto a particular period. The complainant being attracted of the said offer approached the sales agent of Gargo Motors, Dibrugarh Office and being satisfied with the offer, immediately booked a Nano car vide booking slip No.19353 by paying Rs.300/- on 23.09.2011. Thereafter, the OP No.1 requested the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- only as down payment which, the complainant deposited vide receipt No.1696 dated 28.09.11. The OP again asked the complainant to deposit another sum of Rs.8600/- which the complainant deposited vide receipt No.2110 dated 10.10.2011 and got the Nano car delivered. After delivery of the Nano car the sales agent  Mr. P.Rahman of Gargo Motors, Dibrugarh informed the complainant that the insurance of the said car was completed but the registration is under process. The complainant could not ply the vehicle on the road for absence of registration certificate since its date of delivery. As such, complainant requested OP No.1,2 and 3 to register the said vehicle. The EMI of the vehicle was settled at Rs.3100/- per month. But the complainant was not allowed to deposit the instalment for non-registration of the vehicle. The OP No.1,2,3 intentionally and negligently failed to fulfil their promise for free insurance and free registration as per their commitment in the advertisement. The complainant finding no other alternative on 01.03.12 handed over the said vehicle to the Gargo Motors, Jorhat in consultation with Gargo Motors, Dibrugarh  as he could not ply the vehicle for non-registration and non-availability of the Insurance policy. The above act of the OPs were out and out deficiency in service due to non-registration of the vehicle as per commitment for which the complainant suffered immense loss, torture, harassment and agony. Hence, the complainant filed this case claiming Rs.1,98,900/- along with the cost of the litigation.

         After registering the case, notices were issued to all the OPs to which, they have submitted written statement  stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The OPs denied the allegation of the complainant and stated that they have not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant after due enquiry and also knowing the details of total cost of the car i.e. 1,56,000/- booked the Nano car on 23.09.11 by paying Rs.300/-. The complainant intended to purchase the car with the financial assistance from Tata Motor Finance. As such, Sri P. Rahman of OP  requested the complainant  to come with all the documents duly completed to substantiate his credibility and pecuniary ability to pay the EMI and other expenses such as registration, insurance which are mandatory requirement to get clearance from Tata Motor Finance to finance the vehicle. As such, he was asked to submit following documents –

1. Address proof (permanent),
2. I/D proof with passport size photograph (4 copies),
3. Up to date bank passbook (S/A),
4. Mandate auto debit form,
5. Salary slip,
6. Certificate of quarter allotment from the Government Authority as he was an employee of Arunachal Pradesh Government, camp- Mohanbari.

       Complainant on 28.09.11 visited the dealer  (OP) at Dibrugarh and deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as initial down payment against the proposed purchase of Nano car but he did not submit the entire document as asked for. He submitted (1)photocopy of cover page of Bank Account of SBI but not submitted statement of account of last six months, (2) PAN card photocopy as I/D proof, (3) Job Identity Card. But he did not submit the most vital proof such as salary slip, six months bank statement, proof of quarter allotment, as such, P.Rahman repeatedly cautioned that mere making down payment of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient unless the complete documents are  submitted. He also informed to the complainant that unless the complete documents are submitted there is no surety or certainity that the vehicle will be financed by the Tata Motor Finance. The complainant promised to Mr. Rahman that he will surely submit the documents but as the  matter is in the process it may require few days time and requested OPs to hand over the vehicle which is badly required to him for enjoying Durga Puja festival. However, for repeated insistence of the complainant and on good faith on deposition of Rs.8600/- the OP handed over  the vehicle to the complainant on the assurance given by the complainant that he would submit all the documents. The OPs sent all the documents which are submitted by the complainant though not sufficient to the Tata Motors Finance, Tinsukia on 28.09.11 for its approval. Further, the OPs repeatedly insisted the complainant to submit all the necessary documents but as the complainant failed to submit all the necessary documents and also not contracted with the OP the Tata Motors Finance has ultimately rejected the case of the complainant to finance the car for insufficient documents. The matter was duly reported to the complainant and requested him to handover the vehicle. Mr. P.Rahman various occasion, not less than five times visited to the Office of the complainant askim him either to make full payment against the price of car and or to handover the vehicle. But the complainant very cleverly one pretext or other avoided the matter. The OPs again served letters on 11.12.11 and 11.02.12 asking the complainant to handover the vehicle. At last on 01.02.12 the complainant handed over the said vehicle to the OPs. Due to non-fulfilment of criteria and non-submission of documents which are mandatory for finance of a car, the registration and insurance of the car could not be completed for which OP cannot be held liable for negligence on the part of the complainant. Further, it is submitted that the complainant illegally and without sanction of law and in violation of the terms and condition retain and used the vehicle as such, the OPs prayed to dismiss the case with cost of Rs.25000/-.

              In this case complainant gave his evidence along with PW-2 Sri Tuman Mahanta  by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 5 (five) documents. The complainant though exhibited five documents in the evidence but not submitted the same. On the other hand, OPs examined one witness Sri Bhaskar Borpujari as DW-1 and exhibited 2 (two) documents to rebut the case of the complainant.

          OP submitted their written argument whereas, complainant has not argued the case.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

Upon going through the evidence of both the parties and their documents it is found that the complainant being attracted from the advertisement of OP approached to the office of the OP and being satisfied with their offer, immediately, booked  a Nano car vide booking slip No.1953 dated 23.09.11 by paying Rs.300/- only. Thereafter, on 28.09.11 the complainant  deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- only as down payment  vide receipt No.1696 dated 28.09.11. Ext-3 is the down payment receipt. The OPs again asked the complainant another sum of Rs.8600/- which the complainant deposited vide receipt No.2110 dated 10-10-11 i.e. Ext.4 and got the Nano car delivered. After delivery of the Nano car the sales agent Mr. P. Rahman of Gargo Motors, Dibrugarh informed the complainant that insurance of the said car was completed but the registration is under process. The complainant repeatedly requested OP No.1,2,3 for registration of the vehicle but the registration of the vehicle could not be obtained for which the complainant could not ply the vehicle on the road since the date of delivery. As such, complainant requested OP No.1,2,3 to register the vehicle. However, the OP  did not allow the complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.3100/- as EMI for failure of registration of the said vehicle.

The complainant alleged that at the time of advertisement the OP promised for free insurance and free registration of the vehicle. But subsequently after delivery of the vehicle the OP refused to insure and register the vehicle. In absence of the registration of the vehicle the complainant could not ply the vehicle on the road. As such, the OP NO.1,2,3 intentionally and negligently failed to fulfil their promise as committed in the advertisement. The complainant finding no other alternative on 01.03.12 handed over the said vehicle to Gargo Motors, Jorhat in consultation with Gargo Motors, Dibrugarh. According to the complainant above act of the OPs were out and out deficiency in service.

On the other learned counsel for the OP while advancing the written argument submitted that mere making a down payment by any customer does not amount that the customer has purchased the said car until and unless he pays entire amount of Rs.1,56,000/-. The complainant agrees to purchase the vehicle from the finance of Tata Motors Finance. The OPs repeatedly requested complainant to deposit the vital proof cum documents such as salary slip, six months bank statement and proof of quarter allotment and also clarified to the complainant that in absence of aforesaid documents he cannot handover the car to the complainant but the complainant with promise to deliver those documents very soon, repeatedly, requested the OPs to handover the car and the OPs on 10-10-11 handed over the  car to the complainant on good faith supposing that complainant would soon  furnish the documents and on submission of the above documents Tata Motor Finance will finance for the vehicle. But, unfortunately, the complainant failed to produce  satisfactory documents to substantiate his credibility and pecuniary ability to pay the EMI the financer Tata Motor Finance rejected the case of the complainant to finance the car which was informed to the complainant and complainant was requested either to make payment of the said car or handover the said car to the OP. The OP subsequently, sent two letters  dated 11-12-11 and 11-02-12 which were duly served upon the complainant. Ext.1 and 2 are those letters. The complainant however, handed over the car on 01-03- 12.  The complainant has illegally without the sanction of law violated the terms and condition and used the  car, as such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs rather,  the complainant misrepresenting and illegally obtained the  delivery of the vehicle.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel  for the OP it is found clear that the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant after due enquiry and on being satisfied with the offer immediately booked  the Nano car by paying Rs.300/- on 23-09-11.  Thereafter, the complainant with the request of the OP deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- as down payment  as well as Rs.8600/- and got the Nano car delivered.

  So far the allegation of the complainant that the OPs in their advertisement offered the sale of Nano car  at free insurance and free registration upto a particular period is concerned, the complainant has failed to submit any such documents. The complainant has also failed to produce the newspaper in which  the said advertisement was published. Irrespective of the advertisement,  free insurance and free registration it is found from the evidence on record that the complainant without paying the total  cost of the car Rs.1,56,000/- either by cash or by finance from any other sources took the delivery of the vehicle assuring the OP that he would produce all the documents required for financing. The complainant before taking delivery of the vehicle produced few documents such as –(1) photocopy of the cover page of the bank account, (2) PAN card as I/D proof and job identity card but did not submit the most vital documents such as salary slip, six months bank statement, proof of quarter allotment to substantiate his credibility and pecuniary ability to pay the EMI as a result of which the Tata Motor Finance  rejected the case of the complainant to finance the car.

   Thus, it is apparently clear that the complainant has not paid the price of the car i.e. Rs.1,56,000/- to OP, which is mandatory for registration of a car. Mere making down payment of Rs.10,000/- is not sufficient unless the full payment was made to OPs either by financing company or by the complainant himself. The complainant relied the finance of the vehicle from Tata Motor Finance to pay the full amount but before financing he has to furnish all required documents which the complaint failed to submit. The OP assured the complainant that unless the complete documents are submitted there is no surety or certainity that the vehicle will be financed by the Tata Motor Finance. As the complainant failed to submit the documents as asked by the OPs the financer Tata Motor Finance rejected to finance the car in absence of supporting documents for furnishing his credibility and pecuniary ability to pay the EMI.

In view of the above foregoing decision and after considering the fact  and evidence this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that the evidence disclosed by the complainant has failed to establish his case. The complainant took the delivery of the vehicle by false assurance that he would submit all the documents and thereby his financer will finance the vehicle. At the fake end while the complainant failed to procure the documents as required and could not finance the car, he was compelled to return the vehicle. Considering the fact and circumstances both by oral and documentary evidence it is established that there is no deficiency in service and illegal trade practice committed by OPs as such, the case of the complainant is dismissed without cost devoid of merit.