ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member—This Revision Petition has been filed against impugned Order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 805 of 2016 vide which the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant, a resident of Village Barwani, Sonepat, purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic Diesel vehicle (Temporary No. HR-99-QF-Temp-0012) from the Opposite Party No. 1 for Rs.9,24,888/-, out of which Rs.4,50,000/- was paid in cash. The Opposite Party No. 1 assured the Complainant that the remaining amount would be financed, the vehicle would be insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance, and the necessary documents, including the original bill and invoice, would be provided for registration with the Motor Vehicles Authority in Sonepat. However, on the purchase date, 31.12.2013, only a temporary registration number was issued (Ex.C.1), and the vehicle was delivered. Contrary to assurances, the Opposite Party No. 1 insured the vehicle with Reliance General Insurance (Policy No. 200532311027392, valid until 30.12.2014) instead of HDFC ERGO. Despite the Complainant’s multiple requests and a Legal Notice, the original bill and invoice were not provided. When contacted, an agent of the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant that the vehicle account had been incorrectly entered under ICICI Bank and assured that a corrected bill would be prepared and sent. However, the ICICI Bank refused to release the bill, and the Opposite Party No. 1 claimed the vehicle had been financed by Sundaram Finance on 02.03.2014, instead of 31.12.2013. The Complainant alleges negligence, stating that the delay and improper financing arrangements led to the inability to register the vehicle, resulting in significant mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue, the original bill and invoice necessary for registration remain unavailable, leaving the Complainant unable to use the vehicle effectively. Consequently, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Sonepat.

3. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 18.07.2016 partly allowed the Complaint. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1 then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 03.08.2017 dismissed the same, and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below—

“14. The complainant had to face so many hardships un- necessarily as the opposite party No.1 did not provide sale letter, bill regarding purchase of the vehicle and other documents needed for registration of the vehicle for such a long time despite this fact that the total sale price amount had already been paid to the opposite party No.1 before 13th March, 2014. In these circumstances, findings of the learned District Forum to give necessary directions as mentioned in paragraph No.6 of this order, are held valid and justified. The opposite party No.1 shall make available and provide sale letter, bill regarding purchase of the vehicle and other documents needed for registration of the vehicle and shall make payment of the penalty amount etc as per directions given in the impugned order.

15. As a result, as per discussions above in detail, we find no infirmity and illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, findings of the learned District Forum stand affirmed and appeal stands dismissed.”

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

5. The decisions of both the lower Fora below on the question whether the Complainant had been able to successfully establish that the entire consideration price of the vehicle inclusive of the amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs obtained from the Financier/Respondent No. 2 had actually been paid to the Opposite Party/present Petit