1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased an Auto from  Op.1 on down payment o Rs.48, 500/- and availed loan from OP.3 for rest of the amount to be paid to OP.1 but the OP.1 wrongly recorded the said vehicle in the name of Lakshman Soura vide Invoice No. PV 347 dt.29.11.2013 for which the vehicle could not be registered and plied.  It is submitted that in order to prevent cumulative losses, the complainant forced to sale his house hold articles to clear the loan availed from OP.3.  The complainant further submitted that the vehicle supplied by OP.1 has got inherent manufacturing defect as the gear is defective, mileage is low and oil is leaking from the engine head and the dealer is refusing to attend the defects on the ground that the R. C. Book is not available.  It is also further submitted that the vehicle met with an accident causing serious damage to the vehicle and passengers and on intimation to Insurance Co. they insisted deposit of R.C. Book and relevant papers of the vehicle and also denied to accept the claim application.  Thus alleging defects in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP.1 to supply a defect free vehicle and to pay Rs.4.00 lacks towards damages and compensation, OP.2 to reimburse the loss due to damage of vehicle in the accident and the OP.3 to waive out the entire outstanding loan amount for wrongly created loan account in fictitious name and to refund the deposited amount with compensation of Rs.2.00 lacs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that on receipt of loan sanction letter dt.29.11.2013 the OP delivered the vehicle to the complainant vide Invoice No. PV 347 dt.29.11.2013 in the same name to whom the loan was sanctioned by the financier and the loan sanction letter produced by the complainant was in the name of Mr. Lakshman Soura.  It is contended that the complainant acknowledged taking possession of the vehicle and the sale certificate dt.29.11.2013 was issued to him.  The delivery of the vehicle to the complainant along with papers was also duly intimated to the financier as per their loan sanction letter and the financier was requested to release the amount and the and the financier on 18.12.2013 issued Delivery Order No.4019459 in the name of Lakshmi Narayan Soura and the OP having noticed the discrepancy in the name immediately intimated the financier and the complainant to correct the same but they did not respond.  It is also further contended that the complainant is plying his vehicle and never brought to the notice of this OP about the mistake appear in the invoice and also never approached for issue of correct invoice. The OP contended that registration of vehicle and payment of tax is the obligation of the owner of the vehicle and this OP cannot issue sale letter of the vehicle in any other’s name.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant has never intimated the fact of accident to this OP and they came to know the fact after receipt of notice from the Forum.  It is further contended that they have neither received the fact of accident nor deputed any surveyor to assess the loss and hence at this stage, the Insurance Co. is unable to admit its liability.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations but admitted about the loan agreement bearing No.2949859 dt.18.12.2013 executed by the complainant with them for purchase of Auto from OP.1 and agreement value was Rs.2, 08,950/- to be repaid in 36 EMIs starting from 18.12.2013 to 05.10.2016.  It is contended that as on 14.5.2015 the complainant was supposed to pay 18 EMIs whereas he has paid only 8 EMIs and has defaulted in payment of Rs.60, 800/- and as such the complainant is very irregular in payment of loan dues.  It is further contended that the complainant in spite of reminders did not pay the outstanding dues and also did not keep the hypothecated vehicle in good conditions and hence the conduct of the complainant shows to deprive the Op from its legitimate dues.  It is also further contended that the allegations in the present case have been made against the Ops 1 & 2 and the transaction due to which the complaint arose is a transaction among the complainant, dealer and insurance co. and the financier has no obligation in this matter.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5.                     The complainant and the Ops have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their cases. Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6.                     In this case the purchase of Auto by the complainant from OP.1 after availing loan from OP No.3 and the OP.2 being the insurer of that vehicle are all admitted facts.  It is seen that the complainant made down payment of Rs.48, 323/- to the OP.1 and availed a loan of Rs.2, 08,950/- from OP.3 which includes interest and all for purchase of Auto and acknowledged the vehicle on 29.11.13 from OP.1.  The case of the complainant is that the OP.1 wrongly recorded the said vehicle in the name of Lakshman Soura for which the vehicle could not be registered and the complainant could not ply the vehicle on road.  Against this allegation of the complainant, the OP.1 in his counter stated that on receipt of Loan Sanction Order dt.29.11.13 issued by OP.3, the OP.1 delivered the vehicle to the complainant vide Invoice No. PV 347 dt.29.11.2013 in the same name to whom the loan was sanctioned.

7.                     On perusal of loan sanction order issued by OP.3 it is seen that the loan has been sanctioned in the name of Lakshman Soura instead of Lakshmi Narayan Soura to which the complainant claims to be his original name.  Before sanctioning the loan the OP.3 being financier must have insisted necessary documents in support of his identification etc from the complainant and as per documents the name of the complainant was to be put in the loan sanction order.  It is further seen that the OP.3 has mentioned Lakshman Soura as name of the complainant in the loan sanction order but in the agreement and other correspondences has written Lakshmi Narayan Soura to which the complainant claims to be his original name.   In the above circumstances, we do not understand as to how the OP.3 used two names in a particular loan transaction.  The OP.3 in his counter has not uttered a single word regarding this discrepancy.  Hence this is a case of gross irregularity on the part of financier.

8.                     The OP.1 says that as per the name mentioned in the loan sanction letter, they issued invoice in the same name and also intimated the fact of sale to the financier.  The OP.3 also issued delivery order No.4019459 dt.18.12.2013 in which the name of the complainant has been mentioned as Lakshmi Narayan Soura.  The OP.1 further stated that having been noticed the discrepancy in the name, he intimated the fact to the complainant as well as financier but they remained silent.  In support of this contention, the OP.1 has not adduced any evidence but he was on believed that the complainant had got the vehicle registered with RTA.

9.                     Further it is seen that the financier is the owner of the vehicle and the complainant is the hirer.  It is the duty of the financier to ensure registration of the vehicle as the same is under the hypothecation agreement.  When the complainant did not produce R. C. Book in time, it is the duty of the financier to ask the complainant for what reason the R. C. Book is not produced.  Further it is the duty of the complainant to register the vehicle by paying taxes etc. and it is clearly evident from the complaint petition that the complainant was plying the vehicle without registration.  As per the version of OP.1 he cannot issue invoice other than the name appears in the loan sanction order.  If this is so, it was also his duty to intimate the complainant as well as financier to correct the name after receipt of delivery letter from the financier bearing other name but he failed to do so.  No correspondence from OP.1 to that respect is available on record and hence the OP.1 also committed mistake.

10.                   It is also the duty of the complainant to make necessary correction in the invoice as well as in the loan sanction order by approaching Ops 1 & 3 but he did not do so and pleaded ignorance in the guise of semi-literate.  No communication is available on record showing approach of the complainant to Ops 1 & 3 regarding such discrepancy.  Non approach by the complainant to Ops 1 & 3 is also his mistake but without registration he was plying the vehicle on the road.  Further it is not known as to how the OP.3 has mentioned 2 names in a particular transaction after receiving all necessary documents from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan.  Hence the OP.3 also committed mistake by doing so.

11.                   The complainant is grumbling about accident of the vehicle and non entertaining of claim by OP.2, the Insurance Co.  The OP.2 stated that he is unaware about the accident.  The OP.2 stated that had the complainant informed about the accident they would have deputed Surveyor to assess the loss.  It is seen that there is no evidence adduced by the complainant about alleged accident and subsequent claim before OP.2.  As such accident is not proved and we hold that the OP.2 has no liability towards the allegation of the complainant.

12.                   From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that the Ops 1 & 3 committed mistake for which the registration of vehicle could not be taken up.  Similarly the complainant has not taken any step for correction of his name in the invoice and loan papers.  Registration of vehicle with RTA is most important in order avoid future complicacy.  Hence the Ops 1 & 3 are to be directed to make necessary correction of name of the complainant in all documents and to initiate registration at their own costs.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation and costs in his favor will be just and proper and the Ops 1 & 3 are to bear the above awarded amount on 50-50 share basis.

13.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 3 being jointly and severally liable are directed to take steps to make necessary correction in their respective documents and to register the vehicle with RTA, Koraput at their own costs and to pay Rs.5000/- each to the complainant towards compensation and costs within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  No orders against OP No.2.

(to dict.)