1. The brief fact of the case of complainant is that on 14.06.2018 she purchased one Mahindra Supro VX BS IV from the O.P. No.1 on finance from O.P. No.2 and paid Rs. 1,60,000/- towards down payment with 47 nos. of monthly installments @ Rs. 12,450/- per month.  It is alleged that though the O.P. No.1 had assured to provide all the relevant documents of the alleged vehicle, but did not handover any documents and the vehicle has not been registered till date.  Inspite of her best approaches, she did not get any result, whereas the O.P. No.2 is pressuring hard to collect the monthly installments.  Thus sustaining mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment she filed this case with a prayer to bring back the related documents or to supply a new vehicle, the O.P. No.2 not to collect the monthly installments till finalization of the dispute and O.P. No.1 to pay Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2. O.P. No.1 appeared and filed their counter version admitting the sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant but denied the allegations contending that complainant has paid Rs. 1,60,000/- towards down payment of Rs. 1,29,038/- and Rs. 31,803/- towards insurance against the costs of vehicle for Rs. 5,29,637.08 or to say Rs. 5,29,637/-, but never paid any amount towards registration of the vehicle and they have handed over the documents like sale invoice, money receipt and insurance policy to the complainant on 14.06.2018. Further contended that without issuing the relevant documents, the vehicle cannot be financed, and since the vehicle was financed, as such they have handed over the documents to the complainant.  With other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P.No.2 appeared and filed their counter versions admitting the finance made against the alleged vehicle, but denied the allegations contending that since the dispute is related to registration of the vehicle, they have no role to play and it is a statutory obligation of registration of vehicle by the concerned dealer.  Further contended that complainant has not paid the defaulted amount of Rs. 1,09,807/- and Rs. 32,029/- towards additional interest and Rs. 2,360/- towards cheque bounce charges and with other contentions, showing their no liability they prayed to dismiss the case.

4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submission.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.

5. There is no dispute regarding the sale of alleged vehicle to the complainant by the O.P. No.1 under finance from the O.P. No.2.  There is also no dispute that the alleged vehicle has not been registered till today though the vehicle was sold on 14.06.2018.  After careful observation of the case record, the only dispute arose before us to decide is whether any payment made towards registration of the alleged vehicle ?

6. In this regard, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant and O.P.No.1.  Admittedly, the vehicle was sold on 14.06.2018 for Rs. 5,29,637/- under finance and initially complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-.  As per the submission of complainant the said amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- includes the down payment, insurance charges and registration of vehicle as assured by the O.P.No.1, whereas the contentions of O.P.No.1 is that the said amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- includes only towards down payment of Rs. 1,29,038/- and insurance premium of Rs. 31,803/-. 

In this connection, we have gone through one document filed by the O.P. No.1 i.e. Order Taking Form dated 12.06.2018 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle cost is of Rs. 5,36,637/- which is includes the insurance and registration, which is excess of Rs. 7,000/- as against the costs of vehicle as mentioned in the sale invoice dated 14.06.2018 vide invoice no. INV18A000800 issued by the O.P. No.1.And the said document is also attested by the O.P.No.1 himself as true copy, which clearly evident that the O.P.No.1 has taken excess amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the complainant, but could not satisfy us as to why they have taken such excess amount whereas the costs of the vehicle is of Rs. 5,29,637/-.Further, the O.P.No.2 – financier have not mentioned anywhere in their counter version stating that they have not financed any amount towards registration of the vehicle and kept silent over the same.If presumption is taken into consideration, than it can be safely concluded that the O.P.No.2 has also financed towards the registration of vehicle and the O.P.No.1 has received the amount towards registration of the alleged vehicle.Generally, it is seen that the financiers are always provide finance against the on road price of a vehicle.Further the O.P. No. 1 did not produce any document against the deposit of Rs. 1,60,000/- showing non receipt of amount against registration, as such the oral plea of O.P.No.1 cannot sustain from any angle.Hence we do not think that the O.P. No.1 has not received any amount towards registration of the vehicle.

Further, it is the duty of the concerned dealer to get the vehicle registered, which is a statutory obligation on their part and also the Govt. of Odisha has clearly emphasized the same since a long in accordance with the M.V. Act, 1988.It was the duty of O.P. No.1 that while they came to know about the non registration of the vehicle, they were supposed to extend their immediate cooperation to get the vehicle registered.Hence, we think it was the duty of the O.P.No.1 to get the alleged vehicle registered with concerned RTO and without doing so, the O.P. No.1 playing a hide and seek game with the complainant and kept the alleged vehicle unregistered till date, which is grave negligence on the part of O.P. No. 1.

Further as per record, it is observed that due to non registration of the vehicle, complainant could not run the alleged vehicle properly and must have lost her earnings, for which she must have suffered mental agony and financial loss on the ground of finance of the vehicle, which compelled the complainant seek redress before the Commission. Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.The O.P. No. 1 is herewith directed to get the alleged vehicle registered at their own costs and also to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of sale of vehicle i.e. 14.06.2018 till payment.

Since no specific allegations made out against the O.P.No.2 in the present dispute, the order passed in I.A. no. 02/2020 is herewith disposed off with a direction to O.P. No. 2 not to pressurize hard to the complainant for recovery of their finance amount during the disputed period.

Further complainant is herewith directed to pay the finance amount of the disputed period in four equal installments with an interval of 30 days, from the subsequent month of date of registration of the vehicle, alongwith the finance amount of rest months to the O.P. No.2 without fail.

Pronounced the order in the open Commission on this the 30^th day of September, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.