1. The fact of the case of complainant is that on 10.02.2018, she purchased one Hero Scooty of model no. Hero MotoCorp Maestro Edge, bearing Chassis no. MBLJFW01XH4M09934, Engine no. JF33ABH4M09788 from the O.P.No.1 vide Invoice No. 729 dated 10.02.2018 for Rs. 67,000/- which includes the Ex-showroom price of Rs. 55,089/-, Registration Fees of Rs. 6,528/-, insurance of Rs. 1,983/- and one gold ring worth of Rs. 8,500/- as a gift from O.P. No. 3 on discount basis.It is alleged that at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle, the O.P. No. 1 did not hand over the user’s manual inspite of repeated requests. It is alleged that after first service, she noticed that huge quantity of white smoke coming from the silencer and on contact with O.P. No. 1, who received the said vehicle and send it to the O.P. No. 2, being its’ associate and kept the same for about six months with them.Further, it is alleged that the O.P. No. 1 has taken the registration fees of Rs. 6,528/- whereas as per Govt. fees rate, the registration fees is of not more than 3,700/-, as such the O.P. No. 1 has taken excess price of Rs. 2,800/- fraudulently.It is also alleged that at the time of delivery of vehicle, the O.P. No. 1 assured for a gift of gold ring of Rs. 10,000/- from the O.P. No. 3 and on discount it will costs her Rs. 8,500/- and O.P. No. 1 also taken Rs. 8,500/- from the complainant and till date no gold ring was gifted to her by the O.P. No. 1, 2 & 3 and in this regard her several efforts got in vein, thus alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, she filed this case claiming to refund the costs of alleged vehicle or to returned her vehicle with immediate effect and also to pay the excess price taken by the O.P. No. 1 towards registration fees and costs of gold ring and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 after receiving the notice from the Fora, appeared through their authorized representative, but did not choose to file their counter version to make any contradiction, inspite of repeated opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice, however, they have participated in the hearing after availing liberty to participate as per our order no. 6 dated 09.05.2019.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 & 3, though received the notice from the Fora vide R.L. no.RO886172130IN and RO886172090IN both dated 01.03.2019, did not choose to appear in this case nor filed their counter versions nor participated in the hearing also, inspite of repeated opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them.
    
4. The O.P. No. 4 appeared through Addl. G.P., who filed counter versions admitting the registration of alleged vehicle under them but denied the other allegations contending that as per Govt. prescribed rules, they have received the registration fees from the Complainant through the O.P. No. 1 towards the registration of the alleged vehicle, as such showing their no liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. Parties have filed certain documents which are marked as exhibits for better convenient
   
   Complainant filed certain documents such as :-
   C1. Xeroxx copy of delivery challan issued by Subham Automobiles,
   C2. Xerox copy of tax invoice vide no. 729 dated 10.02.2018 issued by Subham Automobiles,
   C3. Xerox copy of insurance certificate vide no. 3005/39653496/64786/000 valid from 10.02.2018 to 09.02.2019.

O.P. No. 1 filed certain documents such as :-

OP1a. Xerox copy of tax invoice vide no. 729 dated 10.02.2018,

OP1b. Copy of expenses towards registration fees issued by State Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha,

 OP1c. Copy of insurance certificate vide no. 3005/39653496/64786/000,

OP1d. Copy of invoice no. 201 dated 10.02.2018 showing the sale of accessories,

OP1e. Letter signed by Bagi Podiami submitted by A/R for O.P. No. 1

O.P. No. 4 filed document such as :-

OP4(aa). Copy of details of expenses towards registration of alleged vehicle issued by State Transport Department, Govt. of Odisha.

Heard from the parties, perused the case record and material documents available therein.   

6. During the course of hearing, several questions were raised by the parties, which make very much contradiction to each others.  As such we decided to take up the relevant questions to decide as follows :-

1. Whether keeping the alleged vehicle for about 6 months for repair in the garage of O.P. No. 2 by the O.P. No.1 is proper and justified ?
2. Whether the submissions of complainant regarding gift of gold ring made by O.P. No. 1 is bonafide ?
3. Whether the registration fees being taken towards registration of alleged vehicle is proper and legal ?
4. Whether the O.P. No.1 has properly provided all the accessories to the Complainant at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle ?
5. Whether the letter signed by Bagi Podiami submitted by A/R for O.P. No. 1 is genuine ?  
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs as claimed for, if so, to what extent ?

7. Coming to the first point, it is ascertained from the submissions of the Complainant that after availing the first free service, she noticed that white smoke is coming from the silencer of the alleged vehicle and she handed over the vehicle to the O.P. No. 1 for its repair, whereas the O.P. No. 1 send the said vehicle to the garage of O.P. No. 2, being his associate, and the said version of Complainant was challenged by the O.P. No. 1, but to make it contradict, the O.P. No. 1 did not file any cogent evidence to prove their submissions i.e. job card issued either by the O.P. No. 1 or O.P. No. 2 and without any job card, the version of O.P. No. 1 is not believable.  It is also ascertained as per submission of Complainant that the O.P.No.1 kept the alleged vehicle for about 6 months and since he did not return the vehicle to the Complainant, she filed the present case.  It is seen from the record that the present case was filed on 11.02.2019 which means prior to six month of filing of the case the vehicle was under custody of O.P. No.1 & 2 i.e. to say in the month of September, 2018, for its repair.Whereas the O.P. No. 1 has admitted at the time of hearing that on 12.03.2019 they have returned the vehicle to the Complainant, which clearly evident that keeping for about seven months with them, the O.P. No. 1 returned the vehicle to the Complainant.On the above observation, we cannot understand that why the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have kept the alleged vehicle for about seven months whereas the defect can be rectified within a few hours of same day.Since the O.P. No. 2 is totally absent throughout the proceeding, we lost every opportunity to come to know about the actual defects of the alleged vehicle, hence it is can be safely concluded that there is no justification to keep the alleged vehicle for a long period of 6 to 7 months for its repair as such we are not inclined to accept the versions of O.P. No. 1.Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the Complainant.
    
8. Coming to the second point, the Complainant submitted that after getting assurance from the O.P. No. 1 to get one gold ring worth of Rs. 10,000/- on discount basis, which will be cost her Rs. 8,500/- from the O.P.No.3, though was challenged by the O.P. No. 1, but no evidence brought out to make it contradict.  It is generally seen that always a customer does not have evidence to prove his submission, but it does not mean that the versions of customer does not contain any truth.  Though the O.P. No. 1 challenged the said versions, but did not choose to file any cogent evidence by submitting any information from the O.P. No. 2 & 3, being their sub dealer, but without doing so, the O.P. No. 1 tried to push his liability upon the Complainant.  Though the Complainant does not have evidence to prove her allegation, but as per settled law, the onus of burden will be shifted on the other side to prove his contentions, if Complainant does not have any evidence.  And in the instant case, the O.P. No. 1 has miserably failed to produce any evidence to prove his contentions.  Further on many occasions, it is seen that the dealer or their sub dealer to increase the volume of sale, have adopted such measures to attract the customers.  Hence, we are not inclined to accept the versions of O.P. No. 1. Accordingly, the answer goes in favour of the Complainant.
    
9. Coming to the third point, it is ascertained from the record that Complainant has filed document marked as Ext. C1 i.e. xerox copy of delivery challan issued by Subham Automobiles, wherein the registration charge is mentioned as for Rs. 6,528/- and Complainant has submitted that she has paid the said amount to the O.P. No. 1, which was challenged by the O.P. No. 1 stating that they have fixed the registration charges as per Govt. prescribed rules.  In this connection, we directed the O.P. No. 4 to submit the registration fees taken by them against the alleged vehicle.  The O.P. No.4 also submitted their report which was marked as Ext. OP4(aa), wherein the registration fees was collected against the alleged vehicle was for Rs. 3,626/- vide their Receipt / Appl No. OR30D18050000529/OR18052201180171, which includes Postal Fee, Smart Card Fee, MV Tax and New Registration and the same was collected through Subham Automobiles i.e. O.P. No.1.  From the above documents filed by the Complainant and O.P. No. 4, it is ascertained that the O.P.No.1 has fraudulently grabbed excess amount from the Complainant i.e. for Rs. 2,902/- (Rs. 6,528 -  Rs. 3,626), which is not justified as per law and so also the said activity of O.P. No. 1 attracts the criminal offence.
    
10. Coming to the fourth point, it is ascertained as per submission of Complainant that she had paid Rs. 5,785/- towards purchase of accessories from the O.P. No. 1 vide their invoice no. 201 dated 10.02.2018 but has not been given the accessories like seat cover of Rs. 450/-, mat of Rs. 250/- and helmet of Rs. 700/-.  Though the O.P. No. 1 has challenged the same. but at the time of hearing could not satisfy the Forum due to wrong submissions about the price of the alleged accessories, whereas the price of alleged accessories as mentioned in the invoice is something different, hence it can be presumed that the O.P. No. 1 might not have handed over the alleged accessories to the Complainant, for which he has no confidence over the matter.  Hence, we feel, the O.P. No. 1 has not delivered the above accessories to the Complainant, otherwise, he could have strongly objected the versions of Complainant.  Accordingly, the answer also goes in favour of the Complainant.
     
11. Coming to the fifth point, we have gone through the document i.e. OP1e, filed by the A/r for O.P. No. 1 and found that the said letter was signed by one Bagi Padiami and Podia Kabasi with their phone number i.e. 8658215082 mentioned therein.  It is ascertained that the contents of said letter is totally different from that of the present complaint petition.  Hence, on clarify to the Complainant regarding the contents of the said letter, she denied vehemently and stated before us that the O.P. No. 1 has fraudulently obtained her signature on a blank paper with a false belief that they will settle the dispute on compromise basis, but has written something different as per their own choice which are not in the knowledge of the Complainant. On question to the O.P. No. 1 regarding the fact of the letter, the O.P. No. 1 admitted that he has obtained the signature of the Complainant in a blank paper and written the contents as per his own choice.  As such we rejected the said letter as it was obtained in a fraudulent manner, not being genuine one, and also such type of activity of O.P. No. 1 attracts criminal penal offence as the O.P. No. 1 has tried to misguide the Forum.  Accordingly, this answer goes in favour of the Complainant.
     
12. Now coming to the sixth point, as per the observation made above, it is ascertained that all the transactions are occurred between the Complainant and the O.P. No. 1 only, but not with rest O.Ps.  It is well settled of law that for any misact of the dealer, the dealer is solely liable but not the manufacturer, if no manufacturing defects occurs.  In this case also, the O.P. No. 1 is the sub dealer of O.P. No. 2 having no direct relationship with the O.P. No. 3.  Further it is seen as per the Ext. C2 & OP1a that the sale invoice was issued by the O.P. No. 1 in favour of the Complainant.  Hence, it can be presumed that the O.P. No. 1 being the sub dealer of the O.P. No. 2 has having every functional powers of its own.  In this connection, we have come across the verdicts of National Commissions in the case between Maruti Udyog Limited Vrs Nagendra Prasad Sinha & Anr, wherein it is held that “where relationship between manufacturer and dealer as per dealership agreement was “principal to principal basis” manufacturer could not be held liable for deficiency on part of dealer”.
     
13. From the above discussions, we feel, the Complainant must have harassed mentally, physically and financially by the O.P. No. 1 himself only, as such the Complainant deserves to be compensated with adequate compensation.  From the observation made out in the foregoing paras, we think that the Complainant has been harassed in all manner by the fraudulent act of O.P. No. 1.  Further, it is also observed that though the O.P. No. 1 has received costs of the accessories like seat cover, mat and helmet in total Rs. 1,400/- but has not delivered the same to the Complainant with an intention to grab the hard earnings of the Complainant in a fraudulent manner.  Though the compensation cannot be counted in any terms, however, considering her suffering, we feel if a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and a sum of Rs. 1,400/- towards costs of all accessories, and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- being taken in the name of gold ring and Rs. 5,000/ towards costs of litigation will be provided to compensate, than the same will meet the ends of justice.  Hence this order.
    
                                                                                                   ORDER
    
    That the complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 1 only being held liable, is herewith directed to return all the documents related to the alleged vehicle and to pay 25,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and a sum of Rs. 1,400/- towards costs of all accessories, and a sum of Rs. 8,500/- being taken in the name of gold ring and Rs. 5,000/ towards costs of litigation to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the O.P. No. 1 will be further liable to pay Rs. 50/- per each day from the date of this order till payment.
    
    Since there is no specific allegations against the rest O.Ps, no order against them. Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 17^th day of June, 2019.  Issue free copy to the party concerned.