The main legal point established in the judgment is that the onus to obtain a permit for a vehicle lies with the owner as per Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and lack of evidence presented as per the mode mentioned under Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, can impact the outcome of a consumer complaint case.

ORDER :

P.S. Rana, President

Present appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 2.12.2015 passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 93/2011 titled Raj Kumar v. SML ISUZU Ltd. & Ors. for enhancement of amount granted by learned District Forum.

Brief facts of Consumer complaint:

2. Shri Raj Kumar filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 pleaded therein that opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of Swaraj Mazda vehicle and opposite party No. 2 is authorized dealer of opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 3 is Regional Transport Authority for grant of permit. It is pleaded that complainant purchased vehicle Swaraj Mazda bus from opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and route permit was granted by opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 told the complainant that vehicle would be provided within a period of thirty days from date of booking. It is pleaded that complainant booked the vehicle and deposited a consideration amount of Rs. 1.00 lac on dated 18.1.2010. It is further pleaded that complainant also obtained permit from opposite party No. 3. It is pleaded that vehicle was not supplied to complainant and complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 23,000 (Twenty three thousand) as penalty for extension of route permit. It is pleaded that complainant visited 40 times to M/s. Suman Motors opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 delivered the vehicle to complainant on 9.11.2010. It is pleaded that opposite parties increased the sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 35,000 (Thirty five thousand). It is pleaded that complainant requested opposite parties not to charge excess sale consideration amount but opposite parties did not accept the request of complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle sold by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was not approved for plying within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is pleaded that vehicle remained non-operative. It is pleaded that complainant has obtained loan from bank in order to purchase vehicle and complainant has to suffer monetary loss. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 10.00 lac as compensation for mental torture and loss of income. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 22,000 (Twenty two thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.

3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that opposite party No. 1 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that opposite party No. 1 and 2 are working on principal to principal basis. Opposite party No. 1 is not liable for acts of omission and commission of opposite party No. 2. It is further pleaded that vehicle was used for commercial purpose and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that opposite party No. 1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and opposite party No. 2 is authorised dealer. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased by complainant directly from opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that there was no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that consideration amount was received by opposite party No. 2 from complainant directly. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 1 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.

4. Opposite party No. 2 did not file version.

5. Separate version filed by opposite party No. 3 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No. 3 and complainant has no cause of action and locus standi against opposite party No. 3. It is pleaded that complainant has purchased vehicle without any confirmation from opposite party No. 3 qua plying of vehicle in Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present consumer complaint due to his act, deed and acquiescence against opposite par