BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, BIKANER FIRST APPEAL NO: 216/2012 Tata Motors Limited Registered Office Bombay House 24 Homi Mody Street Mumbai 400001, Through Authorized Signatory M.K. Bipin …Appellant -VERSUS-

1. Ram Niwas S/O Shri Chattar Singh Residence Gali No.4 Near bus stand Hanumangarh, (Rajasthan).

…Complainant/Respondent

2. Pasco Motors N.H.-21 Village Khabra, Solrivaya Opp. Gurudwara District Roop Nagar (Punjab) through the Manager

3. District Transport Officer Hanumangarh …Respondent BEFORE HON’BLE MR. A.K. AGARWAL - MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. R. N. SARSWAT - MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

Present:

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Raj and Gautam Giri Advocates.

For Respondent No.1: None Present For Respondent No.2: Trilochan Sharma Adv.

For Respondent No.3: None Present Dated: 29/10/2025

Judgment

Authored by: Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Sarswat – Member Complainant’s Version Mr. Ram Niwas (hereinafter referred to as the ―Complainant‖), for his livelihood, purchased a Tata LPO Bus Chassis Model–1512 TC BSII bearing Engine No. 11D63125784 and Chassis No. MAT412279B0E08392 from Posco Motors (hereinafter referred to as ―Respondent No.1‖) on 30.06.2011, for a consideration of ₹11,30,000/-, availing a loan facility from Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Thereafter, the Complainant spent an additional sum of ₹7,00,000/- for the fabrication of the bus body, thereby making the total cost of the bus ₹18,30,000/-. On 01.09.2011, the Complainant applied for registration of the vehicle before the District Transport Officer (hereinafter ―Respondent No.3‖), depositing a fee of ₹1,700/ vide receipt No. 384702. However, upon inspection, the registering authority refused to register the vehicle stating that the punched impression of the chassis number on record was different from that physically found on the bus.

On approaching Respondent No.1, the Complainant was informed that the chassis had been manufactured by Tata Motors Ltd. (Appellant herein), which fact was also recorded in the job card dated 07.07.2011. According to Respondent No.3, the discrepancy between the recorded impression and the physical impression raised doubts. The Complainant alleged that this indicated that an old, damaged, and repaired chassis was fraudulently sold to him, in collusion with the Appellant.

The Complainant further contended that despite receiving the registration fee, Respondent No.3 failed to discharge its statutory duty of verifying the matter with the manufacturer and registering the vehicle. This, according to the Complainant, amounted to a deficiency in service. He also alleged that Respondent No.1 and the Appellant indulged in unfair trade practices by selling him a chassis with a dubious number.

As a result of non-registration, the Complainant could not ply the vehicle and suffered serious financial loss, mental agony, and harassment Aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 250/2011 before the District Forum, Hanumangarh, on 08.12.2011, seeking the following reliefs:

 To direct Respondent No. 3 to register the vehicle within one month.

 To award compensation of ₹32,500/- per month towards EMI payments and ₹30,000/- per month towards loss of income from 01.09.2011 till realization.

 To award ₹60,000/- against Respondent No.3 for deficiency in service.

 To award ₹60,000/- against Respondent No.1 and the Appellant for unfair trade practice.

 To award ₹35,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

 To award ₹1,500/- as litigation expenses and ₹11,000/- as advocate’s fee.

 To grant such other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Proceedings before the District Forum The Complainant, in support of his claim, placed on record the following documents:

1. Copy of the VAT invoice dated 30.06.2011.

2. Copy of Cash receipt of registration fee dated 01.09.2011.

3. Copy of Application for registration bearing inspection details.

4. Copy of the Job card containing notes of the chassis impression