ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—This Revision Petition No. 3807 of 2017 challenges the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘State Commission’) order dated 22.09.2017 dismissing FA No.335 of 2016 and upholding the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘District Commission’) dated 31.08.2016 allowing the Complaint of the Petitioner/Complainant directing the OPs to refund the extra amount of Rs.10,776/- paid by the complainant, pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and to pay Rs.10,000/-as litigation costs.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the Petitioner/Complainant, are that the Complainant No. 1 (an insurance agent) and Complainant No. 2 (her daughter-in-law), jointly approached the United Bank of India, Usri Branch for loan to purchase a Mahindra Xylo vehicle. The complainants engaged Opposite Party (OP) No.1 (an authorized dealer of OP-2, the manufacturer) for the vehicle purchase. On 15.03.2012, OP-1 issued a quotation. Subsequently, the loan was sanctioned by the bank, and the complainants provided a demand draft of Rs.7,00,000 to cover the vehicle’s cost as per the quotation. However, they were asked to pay an additional Rs.14,400, comprising Rs.3,624 as the balance and Rs.10,776 due to a 2% hike in excise duty, which was only applicable from 01.04.2012. This amount was paid, and a receipt was issued. The vehicle was delivered on 19.03.2012, with a temporary registration number, as acknowledged in the delivery note dated the same day. However, OP-1 failed to provide the sale letter and other required documents for permanent registration with the DTO, Patna. Despite repeated requests and a legal notice dated 26.03.2012, the required documents were not provided, rendering the vehicle unusable, causing mental harassment and inconvenience to them. Being aggrieved, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission.

3. In the written statement before the District Forum, OP-1 denied the allegations, stating that the delay in providing the original documents was due to non-receipt from OP-2, the manufacturer. The complainants were requested either to return the vehicle within 3 days for registration or to accept a replacement vehicle by paying the applicable excise duty and the price difference. The OPs were always willing to resolve the issue, including replacing the vehicle if the complainants agreed to pay the additional costs. OP-2, in their written statement, asserted that the relationship between OP-1(dealer) and OP-2 (manufacturer) is that of principal to principal, and the dealer is not their agent. The complainants are not direct consumers of OP-2, as the vehicle was purchased from the dealer. There is no privity of contract between the complainants and OP-2, and hence, the complainants cannot claim any relief against them.

4. The complainants filed an Application on 02.02.2015, seeking to add a new paragraph to the relief section. While OP-1 filed a reply, the complainants did not press the application. Consequently, no orders were passed on the matter, and the original relief sought in the complaint petition remains the basis for adjudication.

5. The District Commission, vide Order dated 31.08.2016, allowed the complaint and passed the following order:—

“In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we direct the opposite party no. 1 to return extra amount i.e. Rs.10,776/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six only) to, the complainant within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 will have to pay an interest @ 12% on the amount of Rs.10,776/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Six only ) till its final payment.

Opposite party no. 1 is farther directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant by way of compensation and mental harassment within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this