JUDGMENT P.S. Rana (R), President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 18.11.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.71/2015 titled M/s Sarthi Tour and Travels vs. Shimla Force/Shimla Autos Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. M/s Sarthi Tour & Travels filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is an educated unemployed person residing at Nahan District Sirmaur H.P. It is pleaded that for the purpose of earning his livelihood complainant purchased Tempo Traveller. It is pleaded that 12+1 seating capacity Tempo Traveller vehicle was booked by complainant from opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by Punjab National Bank Nahan for a loan amount of Rs. 930000/-(Nine lac thirty thousand) @ 13.75% interest per annum. It is pleaded that after receiving full and final payment of Rs. 1095890/-(Ten lac ninety five thousand eight hundred ninety) from complainant opposite party had given possession of vehicle in question having passengers seating capacity of 13+1. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was not registered by Licence Authority and thereafter complainant has to reduce seating capacity of vehicle in question to 12+1. It is pleaded that vehicle was took to Moga Punjab for removal of one seat from vehicle in question. It is pleaded that vehicle was converted into 12+1 seating capacity vehicle. It is pleaded that complainant sustained mental agony and harassment and also sustained financial loss. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 1095890/-(Ten lac ninety five thousand eight hundred ninety) along with interest. In alternative complainant sought replacement of vehicle and complainant also sought relief of payment of Rs. 400000/-(Four lac) as financial loss sustained by complainant. In addition complainant sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 11000/-(Eleven thousand). In addition complainant sought interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Opposite party No.1 did not file any version. Opposite party No.2 filed version. Learned District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 and dismissed the consumer complaint against opposite party No.2. Learned District Forum directed opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) to complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. Opposite party No.2 filed version. Learned District Forum partly allowed the consumer complaint against opposite party No.1 and dismissed the consumer complaint against opposite party No.2. Learned District Forum directed opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) to complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned District Forum ordered opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as litigation costs. 4. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite party No.1 filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of appellant and co-respondent No.2. Co-respondent No.1 is already ex-parte. We have also perused entire record carefully. 6. 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: 7. Shri Parveen Mehta filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is educated unemployed person and is residing at Nahan District Sirmaur H.P. There is recital in affidavit that for the purpose of earning livelihood deponent purchased Tempo Traveller from opposite party No.1 in consideration amount of Rs. 1095890/-(Ten lac ninety five thousand eight hundred ninety). There is recital in affidavit that seating capacity of Tempo Traveller in question was booked for 12+1. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 is manufacturing company of vehicle in question. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle in question was financed by PNB Nahan. 8. There is recital in affidavit that complainant took vehicle in office of Licence Authority for registration and to obtain permit and submitted the relevant papers to Licence Authority. There is recital in affidavit that RTO has raised objection and refused to register the vehicle in question on the ground that seating capacity of vehicle was 13+1 instead of 12+1. There is further recital in affidavit that RTO asked the complainant to remove one seat from vehicle in question. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have deliberately and intentionally supplied 13+1 passengers seating capacity vehicle instead of 12+1 seating capacity vehicle and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully. 9. There is further recital in affidavit that RTO asked the complainant to remove one seat from vehicle in question. There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have deliberately and intentionally supplied 13+1 passengers seating capacity vehicle instead of 12+1 seating capacity vehicle and committed deficiency in service. State Commission has perused all the annexures filed by complainant carefully. 9. Opposite party No.1 did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits relating to controversial facts as required under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 has given statement on dated 17.09.2016 that version along with affidavits and documents be read in evidence. Opposite party No.2 also did not file any affidavit relating to controversial facts as required under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. State Commission is of the opinion that version filed by opposite party No.2 could not be treated as evidence of controversial facts under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings and pleadings of parties and evidence of parties qua controversial facts are entirely two different concepts under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Pleadings are not substitute for controversial facts. See ;Latest HLJ 2017 H.P High Court 1011 titled Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Champa Devi & others . 10. Even affidavit filed in support of consumer complaint i.e. Pleadings under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 could not be treated as evidence qua controversial facts under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 because there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act 1986 that affidavit filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 in support of pleadings should be treated as evidence qua controversial facts under section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that temporary registration number was given to complainant for one month and vehicle was registered by Licence Authority within one month from the date of purchase of vehicle and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Plea of appellant that temporary registration number was given to complainant at the time of sale which was valid for one month remained un-rebutted on record. Plea of appellant that temporary registration number was given to complainant at the time of sale which was valid for one month remained un-rebutted on record. It is well settled law that after purchase of vehicle temporary registration number is given by seller of vehicle and same is operative for one month. In the present matter vehicle was sold on dated 29.03.2015 and Licence Authority has registered vehicle and has given permanent registration number of vehicle on dated 28.04.2015 within one month. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that only co-driver seat was added by manufacturing company for safety of vehicle and passenger and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has also carefully perused Quotation/Performa Invoice dated 13.02.2015 issued by opposite party No.1 annexure-A. In Quotation/Performa Invoice dated 13.02.2015 opposite party No.1 has mentioned seating capacity of vehicle in question as 12+1 and consideration of sale amount has been mentioned as Rs. 1095890/-(Ten lac ninety five thousand eight hundred ninety). 13. It is also proved on record vide annexures-B & C issued by opposite party No.1 that advance booking money of vehicle in question having seating capacity of 12+1 was obtained from complainant on dated 17.03.2015 & 18.03.2015 to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) and Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) respectively. Sale certificate has been issued on behalf of Shimla Auto''s Pvt. Ltd. by opposite party No.1 annexure-H and in sale certificate seating capacity of vehicle including driver has been mentioned as 12+1. State Commission is of the opinion that after booking vehicle of 12+1 seating capacity opposite party No.1 was under legal obligation to give possession of vehicle to complainant having seating capacity of 12+1 but opposite party No.1 has given 13+1 seating capacity vehicle in question to complainant contrary to terms and conditions of two booking receipts. State Commission is of the opinion that terms and conditions of two booking receipts could not be flouted by any party unilaterally. 14. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has unilaterally flouted the terms and conditions of two booking performa invoices. Two Booking Performa Invoices dated 13.02.2015 and 17.03.2015 annexures-A & B have been signed by opposite party No.1. There is no recital in two booking receipts qua co-driver additional seat. 14. It is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has unilaterally flouted the terms and conditions of two booking performa invoices. Two Booking Performa Invoices dated 13.02.2015 and 17.03.2015 annexures-A & B have been signed by opposite party No.1. There is no recital in two booking receipts qua co-driver additional seat. There is no recital in sale certificate issued by opposite party No.1 to complainant qua additional seat of co-driver. Above stated facts amounts to deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that excessive compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) has been granted to complainant by learned District Forum without any evidence on record in order to prove that complainant has spent Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) for reducing seating capacity of vehicle in question from 13+1 to 12+1 at Moga Punjab and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant did not place on record any bill relating to expenditure incurred by complainant for reducing seating capacity in the vehicle in question. Complainant also did not file affidavit of independent corroborative witnesses relating to actual expenditure incurred by complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that excessive compensation has been granted by learned District Forum to complainant to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand). 16. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that excessive litigation costs has been ordered by learned District Forum and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant has engaged Advocate before learned District Forum and has also paid litigation costs. State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable litigation costs has been ordered by learned District Forum and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to reduce the litigation costs. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purpose and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that vehicle in question was purchased for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Affidavit of complainant remained un-rebutted on record. It is held that matter falls within explanation added to section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2003. 18. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his affidavit that vehicle in question was purchased for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Affidavit of complainant remained un-rebutted on record. It is held that matter falls within explanation added to section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 w.e.f. 15.03.2003. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum does not warrant interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order of learned District Forum directing opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) to complainant required modification in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice because additional co-driver seat in the vehicle in question could be removed easily by way of removal of net bolts of co-driver seat and in view of the fact that temporary registration number was given to complainant which was valid for one month from the date of sale and in view of the fact that vehicle was registered within one month from the date of sale by License Authority. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 19. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by appellant is partly allowed. Compensation ordered by learned District Forum to the tune of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment to complainant is reduced to Rs. 25000/-(Twenty five thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till actual payment. Order of learned District Forum that appellant would pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) is affirmed. Performa invoice bill dated 13.02.2015 annexure-A and advance booking receipts annexures-B & C dated 17.03.2015 and 18.03.2015 and sale certificate of vehicle in question annexure-H issued by appellant shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. 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.