Complainant Jatinder Kumar has filed the present complaint against opposite parties (for short O.P.) U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby he has prayed for issuance of a direction to the opposite parties to provide the registration certificate, original bills and detail of installments to him alongwith Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical harassment. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice. Opposite party be also directed to restrain to take the forcible possession of the vehicle in question, till the pendency of the complaint.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that he belongs to respectable family and wants to earn his livelihood by standing on his legs and as such he decided to purchase vehicle TATA ACE HT (Chhota Hathi) to earn times meal for his family. Due to limited sources, he went to the office of the opposite party for the facility of finance for purchase of abovesaid vehicle.  The opposite party no.2 provided finance amount of Rs.3,30,299/- for buying of vehicle. Even he paid Rs.15,000/- on 17.10.2016 for booking charges. At the time of releasing finance amount, the opposite party no.2 officials took every benefits of innocence and his less education. His signatures were taken on many blank papers and he raised objection over the same but he was asked that same are just for formality sake and he has no other way beside to believe them. He paid Rs.3300/- as file charges and Rs.600/- as miscellaneous expenses but no receipt of the same was issued. As per agreement, the opposite parties promised to prepare the registration certificate of vehicle through DTO and soon will be supplied to him to run the vehicle smoothly and repay the installment by running the work on it, but he waited for many months, the officials did not supply the original bill of vehicle, detail/track of installments to repay him. Above all, the temporary registration No. given as PB-08-CH-0945 does not look genuine. Most of all, the opposite party not even applied registration certificate of the vehicle on his behalf in D.T.O. Office. So due to non issuance of registration certificate and original bill, he is not in a position to run vehicle on road due to threat of impounding and implication in some false case of theft by D.T.O. Office or Police. He made number of visits to the office of the opposite party and requested for original bill, R.C. and track of installment as being faithful loanee, he wants to return the finance amount by regularly installments but the opposite party was not ready to hear his request. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite party, he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment, so there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party; the present complaint is not being covered under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act for being false, vexatious, frivolous and baseless. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party had only supplied the temporary registration and for the permanent registration it is between the complainant and the finance company it was for the complainant to apply for it or its finance company who had all the relevant record with them. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.     Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that the complainant approached and requested for grant of a loan towards purchase of new vehicle namely TATA  ACE HT. Pursuant to the same the opposite party sanctioned Rs.3,30,299/- and in lieu of the same the complainant executed loan-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee agreement in favour of opposite party. The complainant agreed to repay the entire loan amount alongwith interest, Insurance amount accrued thereon in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs.10,944/- each as per the agreed repayment schedule and also secured the said credit facility by creating charge over the financed vehicle in favour of the opposite party by way of hypothecation vide the aforesaid agreement. The credit facility was subject to the terms and conditions of the said agreement and other documents which the complainant agreed to and accepted by way of his endorsement on the said documents. The said loan agreement was executed on 17.11.2016 at Amritsar. The complainant contract number is 5002160648.  The opposite party has no concern to provide the registration certificate. As far as the registration documents are concerned, they are to be provided by opposite party no.1 but despite that the complainant did not pay the due installment in time and as such there is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. All averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

5.         Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6.       Counsel for the opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.I.D.Sharma Sr.Manager Cargo Motors Pvt. Ltd. Ex.OP-1/1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/7 and closed the evidence.  

7.       Counsel for the opposite party no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Nikhil Lapalikar, Authorized Signatory/Legal Manager Ex.OP-2/1, alongwith other document Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence.

8.     We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have duly considered and perused the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the present litigants while (at the same time) taking the due judicial-notice of the non production of some documents that were otherwise vital for the current proceedings to place/base the resultant award under the adjudicatory Act. We observe that the present dispute complaint has arisen as a result of the alleged unsatisfactory services rendered to the complainant at the hands of the opposite party vendor and financer who were otherwise (vide the express and implied Sale & Finance Contract-Deal) duly liable to provide transparent and efficient basic services to their customer/ consumer vendees. However, we find that the titled service providers here have failed to provide the very basic and necessary services by way of providing the original/certified copy of the Sale-Invoice, the RC (Registration Certificate), the related terms of Sanction and Statement of Accounts for the sold/financed vehicle to the complainant in spite of his repeated requests/ reminders with the result that he had to file the instant complaint to avail of an otherwise usual and routine service.

9.       We further find that the complainant has somehow proved his deposed allegations (Affidavit Ex.C1) vides i) Ex.C2 (Contract Details dated 31.12.2016) of course depicting the outstanding with other particulars but lacking in very basic terms/details of the related sanction viz: Margin Received along with its appropriation, Rate of Interest, Penalty and other charges etc; ii) Ex.C3 (OP1’s Confirmation dated 17.10.2016) exhibiting/ proving that the sold vehicle (Chassis & Engine Nos.) was certified for use as Demo Vehicle with no other Road-Worthiness certificates issued/ made available to the complainant; iii) Ex.C4: Insurance Policy Cover dated 21.10.2016 of the Sold/Financed Vehicle; iv) Ex.C5: the vehicle’s Temporary RC valid for one month up to 20.11.2016 as duly issued by the OP1 vendor and that proves him liable to issue/get issued the Permanent RC from the DTO Gurdaspur; having been in receipt of the full registration fees/charges etc. Thus, the titled OP Vendor/Financer do not get absolved of their liability/ responsibility to arrange/supply the basic-facility documents as requisitioned by the present complainant so as to enable him to profitably employ his vehicle and to repay the transparently placed loan-installments.

10.     On the other hand the OP1 vendor has produced its affidavit Ex.OP1/1 deposing its averments besides: i) Ex.OP1/2, unsigned/undelivered Sales Certificate that incidentally indicates of its liability to manage the vehicle’s Permanent RC for delivery to complainant from whom the related fees/ charges have been un-contested/impliedly received for the purpose; ii) Ex.OP1/3 - Delivery Receipt & Ex.OP1/4 - Gate Pass both dated 21.10.2016 with Engine/ Chassis Nos. left unfilled; iii) Ex.OP1/5 – Insurance Cover & Ex.OP1/6 – Temporary RC valid up to 20.11.2016 only; and iv) Ex.OP1/7 – the Related Invoice dated 20.10.2016 for Rs.3,96,905/- with ‘space for customer-signatures’ left Blank, exhibiting its unacknowledged status and also proving its allegedly undelivered status. Further, the OP2 financer has produced its affidavit Ex.OP2/1 deposing its rebutting averments along with its Ex.OP2/2 the Contract Details dated 31.12.2016 with an anomaly as to the vehicle’s Invoice Amount shown as: Rs.4,10,073/- instead of the actual of Rs. 3,96,905/- (Ex.OP1/7) along with many other shady/non-transparent/finance-unrelated issue-matter unnecessarily forming an integral part of the same. The complainant had been allegedly repeatedly re-approaching the titled service-providers to provide him the necessary papers/information but the same were denied/ not satisfactorily provided and thus prompted the present complaint. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the present complainant has been able to statutorily establish the complaint contented allegations. 

11.     In the light of all above, we partly allow this complaint direct the OP1 Vendor (service provider) to provide the complainant with original/certified copy of the related Invoice (Ex.OP1/7) and the original RC (Registration Certificate) of the Vehicle (in question); whereas the OP2 financer is directed  to deliver the details of the sanctioned finance/hire-purchase facility as availed of by the complainant by providing him with the original/certified copy of the Sanction/ H-P Agreement with complete details as to be in conformity with the RBI Rules & Regulations qua its rate of interest/penalty & other charges etc along with a certified copy of the present up-to-date status transparent and understandable to one layman, in all respects. Finally, the titled opposite party service providers shall severally, jointly & co-extensively execute a total-compliance to the present orders within a period of thirty days of receipt of its copy besides to pay Rs 10,000/- to the complainant as cost and compensation in lieu of the instant litigation. 

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 2018.

                      (Naveen Puri)                                                 

                                                                                              President   

Announced:                                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

May,18 2018                                                                            Member

*MK*