1. The case of complainant is that on 17.07.2020 he purchased one Royal Enfield Motorcycle having model Classic 350 EFI (Stealth Black) from the O.P. No.1 on consideration of Rs. 1,84,482/- under finance vide invoice no. 1480 dated 17.07.2020.  It is alleged that at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle, O.P. No.1 assured to supply the copy of R.C. Book within 15 days, but due to non supply of R.C. Book, he suffers during riding the vehicle on road by detaining by the RTO persons.Further alleged that it was assured to him on down payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- he will avail one scheme of Rs. 10,000/- which covers all the accessories from the O.P. No.1, but inspite of his best approaches, he was not provided with such materials.Further alleged that the alleged vehicle exhibited several defects since the day of purchase, and on approach to O.P. No. 1, who did not cooperate him whereas the technician of O.P. No.1 suggested to contact the O.P. NO.2 being it is a defective one.Thus with other allegations, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards non registration of vehicle within time period, Rs. 50,000/- towards not providing any proper service, and Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. After receiving the notice, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the joint counter admitting the sale of the alleged vehicle to the complainant but have strictly denied all the allegations of the complainant contending that the complainant did not submit the relevant documents for registration in the concern RTO, instead he assured to submit the same within short period, whereas he submitted the documents on 15.12.2020 after several approaches made to him and the documents were uploaded on 26.12.2020 due to problems in M-Paribahan App of Govt. of Odisha and on the same day, complainant was informed about the upload of documents on his mobile number. Further contended that since the financier had not deposited the required fees towards obtaining Trade Certificate from Govt., and in the month of February, 2021 the concerned financier obtained the Trade Certificate for which the R.C. Book was delivered to the complainant as on 16.04.2021.  It is also contended that all the accessories were delivered to the complainant by bus and complainant acknowledged the same and complainant has suppressed the material facts. And with other contentions, showing no deficiency in service and no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submissions.  Heard from the parties and perused the case records and material documents available therein.  

4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the alleged motorcycle from O.P. No. 1 having model Classic 350 EFI (Stealth Black) from the O.P. No.1 on consideration of Rs. 1,84,482/- under finance vide invoice no. 1480 dated 17.07.2020.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle, O.P. No.1 assured to supply the copy of R.C. Book within 15 days, but due to non supply of R.C. Book, he suffers during riding the vehicle on road by detaining by the RTO persons.  Further allegation is that it was assured to him on down payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- he will avail one scheme of Rs. 10,000/- which covers all the accessories from the O.P. No.1, but inspite of his best approaches, he was not provided with such materials.  It is also alleged that the alleged vehicle exhibited several defects since the day of purchase, and on approach to O.P. No. 1, who did not cooperate him whereas the technician of O.P. No.1 suggested to contact the O.P. NO.2 being it is a defective one.  Thus he filed this case showing unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
   
   Whereas the contentions of O.Ps is that complainant did not submit the relevant documents for registration in the concern RTO, instead he assured to submit the same within short period, whereas he submitted the documents on 15.12.2020 after several approaches made to him and the documents were uploaded on 26.12.2020 due to problems in M-Paribahan App of Govt. of Odisha and on the same day, complainant was informed about the upload of documents on his mobile number. O.Ps have filed document to that effect.Further contended that since the financier had not deposited the required fees towards obtaining Trade Certificate from Govt., and in the month of February, 2021 the concerned financier obtained the Trade Certificate for which the R.C. Book was delivered to the complainant as on 16.04.2021.O.Ps have filed document to that effect.It is also contended that all the accessories were delivered to the complainant by bus and complainant acknowledged the same and complainant has suppressed the material facts. O.Ps have also filed document to that effect.Hence prayed to dismiss the case.

5. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties.  Complainant filed certain documents which are only related to the invoice and insurance coverage issued against the alleged vehicle but not a single document towards his suffering for detaining by the RTO persons and also defectiveness of the alleged vehicle.  Whereas the O.Ps challenging the documents of complainant, have filed the documents which are related to the cause of delay of issue of R.C. Book, delivering the accessories to the complainant.  And the documents of O.Ps were never been challenged by the complainant at any time. 
   
   Further it is seen that since the day of filing of the present case, complainant is absent to make out any contradiction. Hence the counter version and the documents filed by the O.Ps remained unchallenged. Since no contradictions were made out, we have no hesitation to disbelieve the version of O.Ps.In this connection we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein Honble National Commission has held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant.” 
    
6. Further it is ascertained that the cause of delay of R.C. Book is occurred due to the fault of either by the concerned RTO or by the financier. Hence, we feel, without impleading the concerned RTO and financier, the allegations made against the present O.Ps cannot sustained.  Complainatn was supposed to implead the concerned RTO and the financier for proper adjudication of the case.

7. It is also ascertained that complainant has not brought out the fact of receiving the accessories before us.  Whereas as per the documents filed by the O.Ps i.e. printed copy taken from the whatsup conversation made between the complainant and the O.P. No.1 clearly proves that the complainant received all the accessories from the O.P. No.1.  Hence we do not think that the complainant has come to use with clean hand with proper evidence to prove his submissions.  Therefore, we do not think that the present case is a fit case for proceeding.  As such, we dismiss the case having no merits. 

                                                                                                        ORDER

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, the present case is dismissed against the O.Ps having no merit.  No order as to costs.  Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 27^th day July, 2021. 

Issue free copies to the parties concerned.