ORDER

A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member—This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.160/2015 whereby the complaint filed by him has been partly allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case, give rise to the dispute are that the complainant/appellant on 28.08.2014 after availing finance from the opposite party no.2, had purchased a Mahindra JCB from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23,43,000/- out of which he paid Rs.5,30,000/- in cash and remaining Rs.17,00,000/- was paid after getting it financed from the opposite party no.2-bank. It is submitted that at the time of purchase, the opposite party no.1 assured him to give discount of Rs.1,00,000/- and in form of additional benefit, it was assured that the opposite party no.1 will provide registration of the vehicle and one year insurance of the vehicle. It is alleged that the opposite party no.1 till today did not provide sale letter nor got registered and insured the vehicle. He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking direction to the opposite party no.1 to get the vehicle registered and insured as also to pay Rs.10,50,000/- as compensation.

3. The opposite party no.1-Sri Ram Motors in reply to the complaint admitted the fact that they sold the JCB to the complainant and gave assurance to get the vehicle registered and insured. The vehicle got insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. of which premium was not taken from the complainant. The complainant had to deposit the road tax of the subject vehicle and since he did not deposit the road tax, the vehicle was not registered. They are ready and willing to get the vehicle registered as and when the complainant will pay road tax. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the O.P. No.1. Prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs is made.

4. The opposite party no.2-bank in reply to the complaint admitted that they had given financial assistance to the complainant to purchase the JCB. Rest of the facts are not related to them. The dispute is between the complainant and the dealer and no allegations were made against the opposite party no.2 as also no relief was sought from them. It is therefore prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed.

5. The District Commission partly allowing the complaint against the opposite party no.1, directed that the opposite party no.1 will bear the expenses for road tax from the date of purchase till 01.10.2014 and for the remaining period the complainant will pay amount of road tax. Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards compensation and costs. The complaint against the opposite party no.2 was dismissed by the District Commission.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned order.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order cannot be sustained as it is against the law. The District Commission failed to consider the facts and documents filed on record. The District Commission did not consider that despite assurance, the opposite party no.1 did not the vehicle registered and insured. The District Commission has erred that since the complainant did not deposit the road tax, therefore the vehicle could not get registered. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the relief sought in the complaint be awarded.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-bank argued that the bank had only financed the JCB and the bank has nothing to do with the dispute between the complaint and the opposite party no.1. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint against them.

9. In support of his complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and affidavit of Pawan Kumar Singh along with documents P-1 to P-14. On behalf of opposite party no.1 affidavits of Shri J. K. Tiwari and Shri Sandeep Tripathi