ORDER P.S. Rana (R), President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 19.09.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 63 of 2015 title Subhash Chander v. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. and Anr. Brief facts of Case: 2. Subhash Chander complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant purchased Alto Maruti Car 800 on 21.12.2013 from opposite party No. 1 financed by opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that complainant pay earnest money to the tune of Rs. 65009/- against the car loan to opposite parties but opposite parties adjusted only earnest advance amount of Rs. 60000/- only. It is pleaded that opposite parties did not adjust an amount of Rs. 5009/- It is pleaded that Opposite party did not supply sale certificate to the complainant and complainant could not ply the vehicle in the absence of sale certificate from the date of purchase of vehicle i.e. w.e.f. 21.12.2013 till date. It is further pleaded that complainant has suffered huge loss and complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 2.00 lac along with interest @ 20% per annum from the date of purchase of vehicle for mental torture harassment and for hiring private taxes. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No. 1 pleaded therein that allegation that opposite party did not adjust Rs. 5009/- is refuted. It is pleaded that sale papers of vehicle were remitted to opposite party No. 2 after the sale. It is further pleaded that opposite party No. 2 is the financer of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that opposite party has discharged all the duties in accordance with law. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Per contra version filed by opposite party No. 2 pleaded therein that complainant availed vehicle loan of Rs. 249620/- from opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that loan amount was to be repaid by complainant in regular monthly instalments of Rs. 5467/- in regular 60 monthly instalments. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 2. Prayer for dismissal of complaint against opposite party No. 2 sought. 5. 249620/- from opposite party No. 2. It is pleaded that loan amount was to be repaid by complainant in regular monthly instalments of Rs. 5467/- in regular 60 monthly instalments. It is pleaded that complainant has no cause of action against opposite party No. 2. Prayer for dismissal of complaint against opposite party No. 2 sought. 5. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and order opposite party No. 1 to supply the documents of vehicle i.e. sale certificate, purchase bills and other documents necessary for registration of vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which complainant would be entitled for Rs. 100/- per day till the documents are supplied by opposite party No. 1. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite party No. 1 to pay punitive compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- and to pay costs of complaint to the tune of Rs. 5000/-. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum appellant filed present appeal before State Commission. 6. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent purchased Auto Maruti Car from opposite party No. 1 in consideration amount of Rs. 314501/-. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has paid car booking charges to the tune of Rs. 1000/- and complainant also paid an amount of Rs. 65009/- as earnest money against the car loan to the opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite parties have adjusted an amount of Rs. 60000/- only and did not adjust an amount of Rs. 5009/-. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No. 1 did not supply sale certificate to the complainant and also did not supply purchase bill and other documents. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle could not be registered in the name of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant could not ply vehicle upon public road. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties. 9. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle could not be registered in the name of complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant could not ply vehicle upon public road. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant also issued legal notice to the opposite parties. 9. Opposite party No. 1 filed affidavit of Shri H.C. Mehta Director of M/s. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that in view of delivery order documents relating to sale were remitted to financer i.e. opposite party No. 2. There is further recital in affidavit that D.O. letter could not be placed on record in view of the fact that customer file which was retained in the office was washed away due to heavy flood on dated 14.08.2014. Opposite party No. 2 did not file any evidence by way of affidavits qua controversial facts. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that original sale certificate and other original documents were supplied to ICICI Bank who had advanced loan amount to complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that vehicle was financed by opposite party No. 2 i.e. ICICI bank Mandi for loan amount of Rs. 249620/-. State Commission is of the opinion that in hypothecated agreement financer remains owner of the vehicle till the loan amount is not paid by the loanee and loanee acquire ownership rights only after clearing loan amount. It is well settled law that person who takes loan retain the vehicle only as bailee/trustee. See 2012 (II) CPJ 8 Apex Court Suryapal Singh v. Siddha Vinayak Motors and other . See AIR 1979 SC 850 title Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi . See 1996 (7) SCC 212 K.A. Mathai @ Babu and other v. Kora Bibbikutty and Anr. 11. As per Motor Vehicle Act 1988 registration of motor vehicle is necessary under section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 to ply the vehicle upon public road. section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted in toto :- 39. See 1996 (7) SCC 212 K.A. Mathai @ Babu and other v. Kora Bibbikutty and Anr. 11. As per Motor Vehicle Act 1988 registration of motor vehicle is necessary under section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 to ply the vehicle upon public road. section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted in toto :- 39. Necessity for registration.- No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with chapter IX of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government. 12. State Commission is of the opinion that registration of motor vehicle is necessity for plying upon public road. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No. 1 was under legal obligation to issue duplicate certified documents of sale and other documents to the complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that opposite party No. 1 has committed deficiency in service by way of not supplying duplicate certified documents to the complainant. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and proved facts is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused order of learned District Forum. It is held that order of learned District Forum is in accordance with law and proved facts. It is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No. 63 of 2015 dated 19.09.2016 title Subhash Chander v. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Point No. 2: Final Order 14. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal is dismissed. Order of learned District Forum announced in consumer complaint No. 63 of 2015 dated 19.09.2016 title Subhash Chander v. Competent Automobiles Company Ltd. is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.