ORDER (Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Retd.) President) - Since all these appeals are directed against the order dated 8.5.2008, passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 438/2001, as such they were heard. Facts as they emerge from the record of the case are, that Chuni Lal, hereinafter to be referred as the complainant purchased a Tata Indica Car from M/s. Hind Motors, Chandigarh who is the authorized dealer of M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Respondent No. 3 is the authorized agent of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. All three of them are being referred to hereinafter as OPs No. 1 to 3 respectively. 2. Tata Indica Car as detailed in the complaint was sold by OP No. 2 and its manufacturer is OP No. 1. It was sold in the month of 4/2000 i.e. April, 2004. Case of the complainant is, that it was in fact 1999 model, but has been passed of as 2000 Model. When put to notice stand of the OPs was, that price fixation is not a matter within the domain of consumer fora. Further according to the OPs fora at Shimla lacked territorial jurisdiction, because no cause of action arose in its favour at Shimla. Above all vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose and thus complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. In this background dismissal of complaint was prayed for. Parties produced evidence in the shape of documents, photographs as well as affidavits. District Forum below after considering the entire material before it allowed the complaint in the following term :- “In view of our findings on above points, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct the OPs No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant for committing unfair trade practice. We also direct the OPs No. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay compensation to complainant for mental agony, torture and harassment to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. We also direct the OPs No. 1 and 2 to pay costs to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. In addition, we also direct the OPs No. 1 and 2 to pay interest to the complainant qua awarded amount at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, i.e. 2.3.2001 till realization. 5,000/-. In addition, we also direct the OPs No. 1 and 2 to pay interest to the complainant qua awarded amount at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, i.e. 2.3.2001 till realization. The complaint against the OP No. 3 is dismissed as learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant has given written statement placed on record that complainant does not want any relief against the OP No. 3. The OPs No. 1 and 2 will comply this order within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. With these directions, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The office will send copy of this order to the parties free of cost, strictly as per rules forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.” 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the OPs submited that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as according to him was 2000 model and had been sold as such. This was so reflected in the sale certificate i.e. in Form No. 21 issued at the time of sale, copy whereof is Annexure A-2 and has been shown as such in the registration certificate Annexure A-3, wherein month and year of is shown as 4/2000. Further according to OPs, there was no unfair trade practice committed by them while the Tata Indica Car was sold by OP No. 2 to the appellant. 4. With a view to support his case, the complainant filed his own affidavit alongwith photographs of the vehicle in question Code bars inside the doors of the vehicle which specifically mentioend that Indica Car was of 1.8.1999. These are 4 photographs and negatives of these photographs are also there. To controvert this evidence OP No. 1 filed affidavit of one Mr. M.S. Pradeep, its law officer. Stand as set out in this reply is reiterated by the said OPs. 5. In the context of Anexure-X attached with the affidavit of the complainant dated 2.4.2005, Mr. M.S. Pradeep Law Officer of OP No. 1 in his affidavit dated 12.4.2004 has not said a word particularly disputing the correctness of code bar relating to the vehicle in question. Nor is he a technical person who could have said something in this behalf. In the context of Anexure-X attached with the affidavit of the complainant dated 2.4.2005, Mr. M.S. Pradeep Law Officer of OP No. 1 in his affidavit dated 12.4.2004 has not said a word particularly disputing the correctness of code bar relating to the vehicle in question. Nor is he a technical person who could have said something in this behalf. Above all at the time of hearing, it could not be contested on behalf of the OPs in both their appeals i.e. Nos. 169/2008 and 172/2008, that the code bar does not pertains to the vehicle that was admittedly purchased by the appellant vide invoice Annexure A-1, its sale certificate Form No. 21 Annexure A-2 and registration certificate Annexure A-3. That being the position, we have no reason to reject Annexure X as was forcefully urged by Mr. Arora on behalf of the OPs in the two appeals filed by them. 6. So far District Forum Shimla lacking inherent jurisdiction is concerend, because no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant here is concerned, keeping in view the fact that the vehicle in question was registered at Dodra kawar, District Shimla as is evident from Annexure A-3 copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle in question. This matter has been gone into by this Commission in the case of Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s. Wheels Word, 1997(1) CPC 312. It has been held that the consumer forum within whose territorial jurisdiction the vehicle is registered and plied has got the jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. Nothing to the contrary has been brought to our notice, as such plea in this behalf is hereby rejected. 7. So far plea of the appellant, that the vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes is concerned, it is being noted to be rejected. Reason being that in paragraph 2 of the complaint it has been specifically mentioned by the complainant that he had purchased the car in question for private use, and was registered as such, Annexure A-3 the registration certftificate support this stand of the appellant. How the vehicle is said to be purchased for commercial purposes there is nothing on record as was argued by Mr. Arora. 8. Lastly Mr. How the vehicle is said to be purchased for commercial purposes there is nothing on record as was argued by Mr. Arora. 8. Lastly Mr. Arora submitted that the impugned order is penal in nature, therefore, it can’t be sustain even if it be assumed for the sake of argument without conceding, that the complainant is entitled to some compensation which has to be nominal, whereas impunged order allow excessive compensation to the complainant thus he prayed for reducing the compensation to a tokan amount. This plea is again without substance. None of the complainants, who have filed appeals can be allowed to first indulge into unfair trade practice and then go scots free as was urged by Mr. Arora, as such this plea is also rejected. 9. No other plea is urged in support of appeals filed by the OP No. 1 and 3. 10. Now coming to appeal No. 223/2008 filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. We are of the view that on an overall examination of the whole matter, compensation etc. awarded by the District Forum below is sufficient and adequate and meets the end of justice. Though Mr. Verma forcefully urged that there can’t be a better case where punitive cost need to be levied upon the OPs. Thus he prayed for allowing the appeals filed by his client. Suffice it to say in this behalf, that while considering the grant of compensation balance has to be struck depending upon facts of the case. We are of the view that compensation assessed is just, reasonable and fair and calls for no interference, muchless enhancement as was submitted by Mr. Verma. 11. No other point is urged. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion therere is no substance in these appeals which are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. At the same time order passed by District Forum Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 438/2001, dated 8.5.2008 is upheld. All interim orders passed from time to time in Appeal Nos. 169/2008 and 172/2008 shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules and office is directed to place authenticated copy of this order on the file of Appeal No. 172/2008 and 223/2008. M.R.B. ——————