ORDER P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 02.12.2015 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.93/2011 title Raj Kumar vs. SML ISUZU Ltd. & Ors. for enhancement of amount granted by learned District Forum. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Shri Raj Kumar filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of Swaraj Mazda vehicle and opposite party No.2 is authorized dealer of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 is Regional Transport Authority for grant of permit. It is pleaded that complainant purchased vehicle Swaraj Mazda bus from opposite parties No.1&2 and route permit was granted by opposite party No.3. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 told the complainant that vehicle would be provided within a period of thirty days from date of booking. It is pleaded that complainant booked the vehicle and deposited a consideration amount of Rs. 1.00 lac on dated 18.01.2010. It is further pleaded that complainant also obtained permit from opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that vehicle was not supplied to complainant and complainant has to pay an amount of Rs. 23000/-(Twenty three thousand) as penalty for extension of route permit. It is pleaded that complainant visited 40 times to M/s. Suman Motors opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that opposite parties No.1 & 2 delivered the vehicle to complainant on 09.11.2010. It is pleaded that opposite parties increased the sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 35000/-(Thirty five thousand). It is pleaded that complainant requested opposite parties not to charge excess sale consideration amount but opposite parties did not accept the request of complainant. It is further pleaded that vehicle sold by opposite parties No.1&2 was not approved for plying within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is pleaded that vehicle remained non-operative. It is pleaded that complainant has obtained loan from bank in order to purchase vehicle and complainant has to suffer monetary loss. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 10.00 lac as compensation for mental torture and loss of income. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 10.00 lac as compensation for mental torture and loss of income. In addition complainant sought relief of Rs. 22000/-(Twenty two thousand) as litigation costs. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. It is pleaded that opposite parties No.1&2 are working on principal to principal basis. Opposite party No.1 is not liable for acts of omission and commission of opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that vehicle was used for commercial purpose and consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is admitted that opposite party No.1 is the manufacturer of the vehicle and opposite party No.2 is authorised dealer. It is further pleaded that vehicle was purchased by complainant directly from opposite party No.2. It is pleaded that there was no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that consideration amount was received by opposite party No.2 from complainant directly. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Opposite party No.2 did not file version. 5. Separate version filed by opposite party No.3 pleaded therein that consumer complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.3 and complainant has no cause of action and locus standi against opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that complainant has purchased vehicle without any confirmation from opposite party No.3 qua plying of vehicle in Himachal Pradesh. It is further pleaded that complainant is estopped from filing the present consumer complaint due to his act, deed and acquiescence against opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and opposite party No.3. It is pleaded that Transport Authority imposed penalty of Rs. 23000/-(Twenty three thousand) upon the complainant. It is pleaded that plying of model of Swaraj Mazda was approved by Transport department on 21.12.2010 vide annexure-R2. It is further pleaded that complainant himself was negligent and complainant did not inquire from opposite party No.3 regarding plying of Swaraj Mazda in Himachal Pradesh. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.3 sought. 6. Learned District Forum ordered opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. It is further pleaded that complainant himself was negligent and complainant did not inquire from opposite party No.3 regarding plying of Swaraj Mazda in Himachal Pradesh. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint against opposite party No.3 sought. 6. Learned District Forum ordered opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 63000/-(Sixty three thousand) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party No.2 would also pay punitive compensation of Rs. 50000/-(Five thousand) to complainant for harassment and mental agony. Learned District Forum further ordered that litigation costs would also be paid to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission for enhancement of amount. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondent No.3 and we have also perused entire record carefully. None appeared on behalf of corespondents No.1 & 2 despite service and they were proceeded ex-parte by State Commission. 8. 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: 9. Complainant did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 qua controversial facts. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement before learned District Forum that complaint and documents filed alongwith complaint be read in evidence. 10. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1 has given statement on 08.01.2015 that version alongwith documents be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1 and close the evidence. 11. Opposite party No.3 filed affidavit of Prashant Deshta in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between complainant and opposite party No.3. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file consumer complaint against opposite party No.3. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has purchased vehicle from opposite parties No.1 & 2. There is recital in affidavit that penalty to the tune of Rs. 23000/-(Twenty three thousand) was imposed by Regional Transport Authority upon complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant has purchased vehicle from opposite parties No.1 & 2. There is recital in affidavit that penalty to the tune of Rs. 23000/-(Twenty three thousand) was imposed by Regional Transport Authority upon complainant. There is recital in affidavit that there was no omission on the part of opposite party No.3 because complainant did not inquire from opposite party No.3 about the fact whether model of bus was approved by Regional Transporting Authority in Himachal Pradesh for plying purpose or not. 12. Learned Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant did not adduce any rebuttal evidence and has given statement on dated 22.07.2014 that complaint alongwith annexures-C1 to C11 already filed alongwith complaint be read in rebuttal evidence. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum has granted inadequate compensation to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that complainant has sought total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1000000/-(Ten lac). It is proved on record that learned District Forum has granted compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 113000/-(One lac thirteen thousand) out of which compensation to the tune of Rs. 63000/-(Sixty three thousand) has been granted for mental torture, harassment and loss of income and amounts spend on visits. In addition learned District Forum granted punitive compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) from opposite party No.2. 14. It is proved on record that complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac to opposite party No.2 directly on dated 18.01.2010 on account of advance booking of Swaraj Mazda bus 20 plus 2 seaters. The delivery date of Swaraj Mazda bus has not been mentioned in annexure-C2 placed on record issued by opposite party No.2 vide receipt No.149 dated 18.01.2010. It is proved on record that as per sale letter annexure-C9 sale letter was issued by opposite party No.2 in favour of complainant on dated 09.11.2010. In the absence of delivery date in receipt annexure-C2 it is held that reasonable compensation has been granted by learned District Forum to complainant and it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to enhance compensation granted by learned District Forum. 15. In the absence of delivery date in receipt annexure-C2 it is held that reasonable compensation has been granted by learned District Forum to complainant and it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to enhance compensation granted by learned District Forum. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle could not be plied w.e.f. 09.11.2010 to 21.12.2010 because no permission was granted by Transport Authority to ply the Swaraj Mazda bus in Himachal Pradesh till 21.12.2010 and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is true that vehicle was sold by opposite party No.2 to complainant in District Shimla vide sale letter dated 09.11.2010. State Commission is of the opinion that necessity of obtaining permit under Section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 lies upon owner of the motor vehicle. As per section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 onus has not been shifted upon seller to obtain plying permit. In view of the fact that onus to obtain permit lies upon owner of vehicle as per section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 it is held that onus was upon owner of the vehicle to obtain permit of vehicle prior to purchase of vehicle. Operative part of section 66(i) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is quoted in toto :- Section-66 Necessity of permits : No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: In view of the fact that onus to obtain permit lies with the owner of the vehicle it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to enhance compensation. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum has not granted adequate litigation costs to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that no advocate fee certificate filed by appellant on record. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned District Forum has not granted adequate litigation costs to the complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that no advocate fee certificate filed by appellant on record. In the absence of advocate fee certificate it is held that reasonable litigation costs has been granted by learned District Forum to appellant. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of co-respondent No.3 that order passed by learned District Forum is in accordance with law and in accordance with proved facts is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to interfere in the order passed by learned District Forum because complainant did not file any evidence by way of affidavit as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 relating to controversial facts and learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant has given statement on 22.07.2014 that complaint alongwith annexures-C1 to C11 be read in evidence qua controversial facts. State Commission is of the opinion that complaint could not be treated as evidence of complainant under Consumer Protection Act 1986 because as per section 2(c) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint means allegations in writing made by complainant against opposite party. It is well settled law that allegation could not be treated as proof of controversial facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that pleadings and evidence qua controversial facts under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are two different concepts. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. It is well settled law that pleading is not substitute for controversial facts. See latest HLJ 2017 H.P 1011 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Champa Devi & others . In view of above stated facts it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on principle of natural justice to enhance compensation as prayed by complainant. In view of the above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.93/2011 dated 02.12.2015 title Raj Kumar vs. SML ISUZU Ltd. & Ors. is affirmed. In view of the above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.93/2011 dated 02.12.2015 title Raj Kumar vs. SML ISUZU Ltd. & Ors. is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Annexure-C2 booking receipt No.149 dated 18.01.2010 issued by opposite party No.2 and Sale letter dated 09.11.2010 issued by opposite party No.2 and Statement of learned advocate appeared on behalf of complainant dated 22.07.2014 before learned District Forum would form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith 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.