1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he had received 5 Nos.  Gift Voucher from OP.2 worth Rs.50, 000/- each meant for purchase of Yamaha vehicles on redemption of said vouchers at M/s. Sriram Enterprises, Bhawanipatna (OP.1).  It is submitted that he furnished Passport Size Photographs, Identity and residential proof and original vouchers before the OP.1 and the OP.1 negotiated with  the complainant that 5 Nos. of vouchers worth Rs.2, 50,000/- and if the complainant agrees to take 4 Nos. of vehicles, the OP.1 will bear the cost of insurance, registration and M. V. documents.  Accordingly the complainant agreed to take 4 Nos. of vehicles of Fascino Scooter and the OP.1 delivered the vehicles but surprisingly did not handover the R. C. Books, sale letters and insurance papers to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicles on 27.11.2015.  It is further submitted that the complainant reported the matter to OP.2 who assured that the OP.1 will deliver all the papers but in vain.  In absence of required papers, the complainant could not ply the vehicles and on approach to OP.1, he remains silent.  With these and other allegations, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP No.1 to handover the papers i.e. sale letters, insurance papers, R. C. Books and direct the Ops 1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on different counts to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the Company directed the complainant to submit 5 original vouchers along with residential proof, Photos, copy of Voter’s Identity Card etc. for taking the bikes from OP No.1 but the complainant did not submit all those documents before OP.1.  It is contended that as per instruction of the Company, the complainant was to take 5 bikes on payment of balance amount against 5 vouchers and to submit relevant documents and thereafter, the complainant was to receive relevant documents from the OP.1 after observing all formalities.  It is further contended that the OP.1 delivered 4 vehicles to the complainant but the complainant did not handover the original vouchers along with required papers and in spite of repeated approach, the complainant did not supply the documents for which the OP.1 could not deliver the relevant papers to the complainant.  The OP submitted that the complainant was insisting cash in lieu of 5 vouchers and as the OP.1 did not agree, the complainant received the vehicles and did not handover relevant papers.  The OP.1 further submitted that soon after receipt of necessary documents from the complainant, the vehicle related documents will be handed over to the complainant.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 in spite of valid notice neither preferred to file counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner.

4.                    Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The complainant filed affidavit.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials on record.

5.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant has got 5 vouchers for Rs.50, 000/- each from Yamaha Company the copies of which are available on record.  It is stated in the said vouchers that one voucher is applicable for purchase of single vehicle and the complainant was to pay the balance amount if exceeds the value of Rs.50, 000/- for the model selected at Yamaha dealership.  It was advised in the voucher that the complainant was to submit 2 PPS Photos, Photo Identity and residence proof and original vouchers at the dealership before lifting the vehicles and the said vouchers are non transferable and non negotiable.

6.                     The case of the complainant is that he furnished all the documents before OP.1-dealer and the OP.1 negotiated with the complainant that if the complainant agrees, the OP.1 will supply 4 vehicles of Yamaha Fascino and bear the cost of insurance, registration fee for preparation of MV documents.  As the complainant agreed, the OP.1 delivered 4 vehicles after receiving documents but failed to deliver the sale letter, insurance papers etc. but assured to send the papers within short time.  As the OP.1 did not supply the documents, the complainant made repeated approaches but in vain.

7.                     In this case, supply of 4 vehicles to the complainant is an admitted fact.  The OP.1 stated that as per Company instruction, the complainant was to take 5 vehicles on payment of balance amount but the complainant was always insisting cash to which the OP.1 did not agree.  The OP.1 further stated that the complainant took 4 vehicles for Rs.2, 50,000/- and the OP.1 delivered the same at the residence of the complainant but the complainant did not handover the relevant papers for which the OP.1 is unable to supply the documents to the complainant.

8.                     First of all, the instructions laid down in the vouchers say that one voucher is applicable for purchase of single vehicle and it is not negotiable.  If the value of vehicle exceeds than the value of voucher, the complainant is to pay differential amount.  It was the duty of the complainant to deposit 5 vouchers along with relevant papers and lift 5 vehicles from OP.1 by paying differential amount.  By not doing so, the complainant has negotiated with the OP and took 4 vehicles.  It is a sheer violation of terms and conditions of offer committed by the complainant.  Secondly, there is no such mention in the vouchers about payment of insurance fees and fees for preparation of MV documents by OP-dealer but the complainant is demanding said documents from OP.1.  The OP.1 says that the complainant demanded money in lieu of vouchers and the complainant stated that the OP negotiated with him and advised to take 4 vehicles.  These facts are out of contract and the complainant has not come with clean hands.

9.                     In is seen that the OP.1 has delivered the vehicle at the residence of the complainant.  The complainant says that after submission of papers the OP.1 delivered the vehicle but the OP.1 stated that after receipt of vehicles, the complainant did not handed over the documents for which he was unable to prepare other documents to be handed over to the complainant.  The OP at para- 6 of his counter stated that soon after receipt of documents from the complainant, he is ready to deliver all the papers to the complainant.  In the above circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1.  The complainant also did not mention in his complaint petition that on which date and through whom he handed over the documents to the OP.1.  He only stated that within the stipulated time, he handed over the documents to OP.  Stipulated time means before 31.5.2015 but the vehicles were delivered on 27.11.2015.  This fact shows that at the time of delivery of vehicle the complainant has not handed over the papers to the deliverymen of the OP.  As such the complainant failed to proof that he has handed over the documents to OP in any mode.  Thus it can be concluded that the complainant has not submitted relevant documents before OP.1 for taking delivery of the vehicles.

10.                   Further the complainant has achieved the vouchers through his business but not by paying money directly to OP.1 for any goods purchased exclusively to be used by him.  Hence the complainant in our view is not a consumer of Ops.

11.                   In the above premises, we find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)