SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-

                          Allegation of  deficiency in service in respect of non-furnishing of required documents to the complainant by the Ops, by which complainant faces difficulties in plying his three-wheeler are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.

2.                  Complaint,  in brief reveals that, Complainant  maintains his family by driving an Auto bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AT-2387 manufactured by Bajaj Auto Ltd. On a promotional scheme, complainant came to know that the OP-Manufacturing Company i.e. Mahindra & Mahindra has launched a scheme to exchange the old auto and by giving financial benefits up to the Rs.10,000/- along with cost of documentation to be bear by the OP-Company. On enquiry, OP No.2 confirmed the offer and insisted the complainant to exchange the old Bajaj Auto and to take new Mahindra passenger Auto. On dtd.17.06.2016 the staffs of OP-Company valued the old Auto to the tune of Rs.42,000/- and provide a new Mahindra Make passenger Diesel Auto(Alfa.Dx.BSIII) on dtd.18.06.2016 through Utkal Automobiles,Cuttack. The cost of the vehicle as per the receipt granted M/s.Utkal Automobiles comes to Rs.2,21,568/- and the Engine No. of the vehicle is R5L2719051 and Chassis No. is MA1LE2FYSG5A82373,Colour BLAKYELL. It is stated that OP No.1 & 3 through OP No.2 received Rs.48,000/- in cash from complainant on dtd.17.06.2016 granting Money receipt for Rs.34,597/- as margin money, Rs.22,568/- as documentation charge, Rs.591/- as processing fee, Rs.2900/- as service charge, advance installment Rs.6180/- and for other charges Rs.2448/-. It is also alleged that Ops have not issued the documents like R.C.Book, permit, fitness etc. as per the offer and demanded Rs.8,000/- for release of documents to the complainant, which is not complied by the complainant. It is further alleged that due to non-furnishing of documents, complainant finds it difficult to run the vehicle and the said vehicle remains idle till-date. Complainant in the complaint petition also alleges that certain payments and exchange offer amount are not credited into the complainant’s loan account. The cause of action of the instant case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and lastly on dtd.17.04.2017, when the Ops refused to give papers of the vehicle. The complaint is filed with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops to release the documents of Alfa Passenger Auto, R.C. Book, Road permit, Fitness etc. and registration of vehicle. It is also prayed that a direction may be given to Ops to pay Rs.75,403/- which includes, excess payment, compensation for mental agony, cost of litigation and etc.

3.               Upon notice the Ops though appeared through their Learned Counsel but did not prefer to file any written statement to defend the allegations of the complainant. Accordingly, the Ops were set ex-parte U/S-13(b)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986.

4.                Heard the ex-parte submissions advanced by Learned Counsels for the complainant also perused the documents filed by complainant. As the dispute is decided U/S-13(b)(ii) of C.P.Act,1986 the documents presented by the complainant as evidences creates much importance to decide the fate of the dispute. The fact reveals from the complaint that, complainant relying on the offers of OP-Company intended to purchase a new three wheeler Auto by replacing his old Auto. Bajaj Auto through financial assistance of OP-Company. It is also alleged that the old three wheeler auto was valued to the tune of Rs.42,000/- by the staffs of the Ops. It is also revealed that the cost of new vehicle comes to Rs.2,12,568/- ,accordingly complainant deposited Rs.48,000/- as margin money against the said 3 wheeler loan. The Engine No. and chassis No. of the vehicle are described on the body of the complaint. It is also the case of the complainant that as per the promotional offer, OP-Company has to bear all the cost regarding preparation of documents, but no documents are handed over  for which complainant is facing difficulties to ply his 3 wheeler. In support of his allegation   complainant   filed    attested    photo    copy   of financial terms of OP-Finance Company dtd. 20.07.2016, Attested photo copy of Retail invoice granted by Utkal Automobiles,Cuttack dtd.18.06.16,attested photo copy of the insurance of the vehicle on Form 51 under central motor vehicle Rules,1989 and a number of attested photo copies of money receipts paid by the complainant to OP-Finance Company. 

                   As we have observed earlier, the fate of the present dispute relies on the documents filed by the complainant as evidences. According to complainant as per the offer of OP-manufacturing company and being accured he availed the finance. But no such offer in a concrete form is presented before the Forum for just decision of the case. Further, the accounts dispute,if any between parties are not subject matter of adjudication of the Forum, on the opinion of the Hon’ble National Commission and our own State Commission. One point is clear on the dispute that the vehicle in question was financed and sold to the complainant-loanee, but documents required for registration of the vehicle are not issued to the complainant, if the documents are handed over to the complainant loanee same does not see the light of the day and not countered by the Ops in any way in the case in hand. In the result, we, feel that non-handing over the documents to the complainant definitely caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant, and the copy of the money receipts reflect that, without availing the documents, the complainant loanee has paid certain EMI’s relying on the reputation of the Ops. In the instant dispute the Ops are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service The prayer of the complainant for providing R.C.Book, Road permit, fitness etc. to complainant in toto can not be accepted by this Forum as the OP-Company is not the appropriate authority to issue Road permit, fitness etc. But the OP-Company is responsible for handing over the required documents, which needs to make the vehicle roadworthy.

                     Having observations reflected above, it is directed that Ops shall handover the documents to the complainant-loanee required for the purpose to make the vehicle road-worthy, if not handed over earlier. It is further directed that

 Ops will pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand)only as compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand)only as cost of litigation. The directions are to be complied by the Ops within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action will be initiated against the Ops as per the provisions of C.P.Act,1986.

                            Complaint is allowed in part with cost on ex-parte.

                Pronounced in the open Court, this the 24th day of April,2018.

                               I, agree.                   I, agree.

                                  Sd/-                       Sd/-                        Sd/-

                             MEMBER                MEMBER              PRESIDENT