JUDGMENT

Nagesh C. Kumbre, Hon’ble Member—Challenge in both these appeals is the judgement and order passed by District Consumer Commission Aurangabad,inC.C.No.238/2018 dated 03.09.2019. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order, the original complainant has preferred First Appeal No.1489/2019 and original opponent no.1, has preferred First Appeal No.1510/2019.

For the sake of brevity the appellant in F.A.No.1489/2019 is herein after referred as ‘complainant’ and respondent no.1and respondent no. 2 are herein after referred as ‘opponent no.1’ and ‘opponent no. 2’. In F.A.No.1510/2019, the appellant is hereinafter referred as ‘opponent no.1’ and respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 are hereinafter referred as ‘complainant’ and ‘opponent no.2’ respectively, as per their status in original complainant before the District Commission. The District Consumer Commission, Aurangabad is hereinafter referred as ‘District Commission’.

2. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that,

The opponent no.1 is finance company deals in advancing loans for purchasing vehicles. The opponent no.2 is associate company of opponent no.1.On 06.02.2018 the complainant had purchased a second hand Tavera Chevorolet vehicle bearing registration no.MH-43-D-6597( in short vehicle ) from opponent no.1 for consideration of Rs. 1,35,000/- It was represented by opponent no. 1 that the said vehicle was seized from one of its defaulter borrower. It is further alleged by the complainant that, opponent no.1 has not given him the necessary vehicle documents. The complainant constantly requested opponent no.1 for delivering the vehicle papers so as to transfer and record the name of complainant with RTO office at Aurangabad in R.C.Book and complete the relevant legal formalities .As alleged default on the part of opponents the complainant filed consumer complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and prays to direct the opponents to handover necessary vehicle papers and claimed lump sum compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- cost of proceedings Rs. 20,000/- etc. The complainant filed copy of payment receipt, payment of facilitation charges, vehicle particulars, RC Book, legal notice etc. with complaint.

3. The opponent no.1 appeared before the District commission and filed their written statement. The matter was proceeded ex party against opponent no.2.In reply, opponent no.1 resisted the complaint and denied all allegations. It is submitted by opponent no.1 that, the complainant engaged in commercial business of transport therefore he is not a consumer. The complainant purchased the vehicle in ‘auction sale’ and therefore the commission is not having jurisdiction to entertain the case. The vehicle was sold by opponent no.2 to complainant and therefore opponent no.1 have no concern with the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service towards complainant.

4. On hearing the advocates and perusing entire evidence on record before it, the District commission held that, opponent no.1 has to pay Rs.1,35,000/-to complainant within 30 days from the date of the order and directed to take back the delivery of the vehicle. Also the opponent no.1 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation and mental agony to complainant within 30 days from the date of order.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgement and order of the District commission the complainant filed the F.A. No.1489/19 whereas not being satisfied with the impugned judgement and order, the opponent No.1 filed F.A.No.1510/19. Heard Adv.Jayant Chitnis for complainant, Adv.R.S.Gangakhedkar for opponent no.1 and Adv.M.D.Narwadkar for oppnent no.2.

6. Adv.Chitnis for complainant argued and submitted by way of their pleading and reply that, the commission below while awarding claim has not considered the business loss of complainant, GST and commission charges paid by complainant. The District commission has not awarded compensation under the head of damages and prayed for or