ORDER : P.S. Rana, President 1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 22.12.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission in consumer complaint No. 51/2015 titled Bharpur Singh v. Competent Automobiles Ltd. Brief facts of consumer complaint: 2. Complainant Bharpur Singh filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that opposite party sold 2nd hand vehicle No. HP-35A-0909 to complainant for consideration amount of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) despite the fact that vehicle in question was registered in the name of Mehar Chand. It is pleaded that opposite party did not issue sale documents i.e. Original R.C. and sale-purchase affidavits and complainant could not ply vehicle in question. It is further pleaded that legal notice was also issued to opposite party but opposite party did not issue relevant documents of vehicle in question to complainant despite receipt of sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand). It is pleaded that opposite party committed deficiency in service and also indulged in unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to refund back consideration amount to the tune or Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) alongwith interest @ 18%. In addition complainant sought compensation for harassment to the tune of Rs. 15000/- (Fifteen thousand). In addition complainant sought relief of litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has purchased second hand vehicle having registration No. HP-35A-0909. It is pleaded that vehicle in question was originally in the name of Sh. Virender Sood and thereafter Sh. Virender Sood sold vehicle in question to Shri Mehar Chand. It is pleaded that thereafter Sh. Mehar Chand sold vehicle in question to Competent Automobiles Ltd. It is further pleaded that factual position was informed to complainant but complainant took de facto possession of vehicle in question and paid consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand). It is further pleaded that in order to help the complainant transfer was effected by R&LA on 05.02.2015 from original owner and copy of R.C. was received in second week of February and complainant was informed accordingly. It is pleaded that complainant filed present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is not maintainable. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand). It is further pleaded that in order to help the complainant transfer was effected by R&LA on 05.02.2015 from original owner and copy of R.C. was received in second week of February and complainant was informed accordingly. It is pleaded that complainant filed present consumer complaint. It is pleaded that present consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that at the time of sale of vehicle in question vehicle was registered in the name of Shri Virender Sood. It is pleaded that thereafter vehicle in question was registered in the name of Mehar Chand and registration number of vehicle was changed to HP-35-2536. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service and did not commit any unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint. Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission ordered opposite party to handover original R.C. of vehicle No. HP-35A-0909 registered in the name of Sh. Mehar Chand alongwith necessary documents of sale purchase to complainant with thirty days so that complainant could run vehicle in question. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that registration charges and penalty if any imposed by R&LA shall be initially paid by complainant and opposite party would be liable to reimburse the said amount to complainant on production of receipt. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that if opposite party would fail to deliver the documents as indicated above in that eventuality opposite party shall pay penalty @ Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per day from the date of complaint till handing over of documents. Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would pay compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs. 1000/- (Ten thousand). Learned DCF/DCC further ordered that opposite party would also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission opposite party 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. 5000/- (Five thousand). 5. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission opposite party 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 and whether Competent Automobiles Ltd. who was not De Jure owner of vehicle in question was legally competent to transfer vehicle in question after receiving consideration amount of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) to complainant on the concept of De Facto possession of vehicle in question? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No. 1 with reasons: 8. Complainant filed affidavit Annexure-C8 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle having registration No. HP-35A-0909 is registered in the name of Shri Mehar Chand son of Shri Mast Ram R/o Village Gohan P.O. Dalash Tehsil Aani District Kullu (H.P). There is recital in affidavit that despite the fact that vehicle in question was registered in the name of Sh. Mehar Chand opposite party sold vehicle in question to deponent on 26.08.2013 for consideration amount of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) in illegal manner. There is recital in affidavit that at the time of sale opposite party assured that all sale documents i.e. Original registration certificate and sale-purchase affidavits would be supplied to deponent within two three days. There is recital in affidavit that deponent time and again requested opposite party to supply relevant documents but opposite party did not supply relevant documents and committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant. 9. Opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. K.K. Mehta Annexure-R1 Director of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that contents of reply be treated as evidence of opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that annexures filed by opposite party be also treated as evidence of opposite party. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party. 10. K.K. Mehta Annexure-R1 Director of M/s. Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. There is recital in affidavit that contents of reply be treated as evidence of opposite party. There is recital in affidavit that annexures filed by opposite party be also treated as evidence of opposite party. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by opposite party. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that registration No. HP-35A-0909 was retained by its earlier owner and new registration No. HP-35A-2536 was allotted to vehicle in question and handing over of original R.C. and original documents of Vehicle No. HP-35A-0909 does not arise at all and penalty imposed by learned DCF/DCC is totally contrary to laws and proved facts is decided accordingly. It is proved on record vide document annexure-Cl that appellant received a sum of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) from complainant for sale of vehicle No. HP-35A-0909 on dated 26.08.2013 and delivered the possession of second hand vehicle in question to complainant.. State Commission is of the opinion that as per law only de jure owner of vehicle was legally competent to deliver possession of vehicle in question to complainant and Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not legally competent to deliver the possession of vehicle in question to complainant after receiving consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) in the absence of de jure ownership in the name of Competent Automobiles Ltd. at the time of sale of vehicle in question to complainant. 11. As per section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered and where such person is a minor the guardian of such minor and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that vehicle in question was under higher purchase agreement with the opposite party or agreement of lease or agreement of hypothecation with opposite party. State Commission is of the opinion that Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not legally competent to sale vehicle in question to complainant because Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not De Jure owner of vehicle in question at the time of receiving consideration amount of Rs. 75000/-. (Seventy five thousand) from complainant. State Commission is of the opinion that Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not legally competent to sale vehicle in question to complainant because Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not De Jure owner of vehicle in question at the time of receiving consideration amount of Rs. 75000/-. (Seventy five thousand) from complainant. It is held that Competent Automobiles Ltd. was only De Facto possession of vehicle in question at the time of receiving consideration amount of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) from complainant. 12. State Commission is of the opinion that it is only De Jure owner as defined under section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 who is legally competent to sell vehicle in question. On dated 26.08.2013 R.C. of vehicle in question was in the name of Sh. Mehar Chand. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Sh. Mehar Chand has authorised Competent Automobiles Ltd. to sell vehicle in question on behalf of Shri Mehar Chand to complainant. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that Sh. Mehar Chand has given expressed or implied consent to Competent Automobiles Ltd. to sell vehicle in question to complainant. In view of the fact that Competent Automobiles Ltd. was not De Jure owner of vehicle in question as defined under section 2(30) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 on dated 26.08.2013 it is held that act of Competent Automobiles Ltd. is ipso facto contrary to laws which ipso facto amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 13. It is proved on record as per version filed by Competent Automobiles Ltd. that vehicle in question was transferred by Sh. Mehar Chand on 05.02.2015. It is proved on record that complainant could not ply vehicle in question on public road w.e.f. 26.08.2013 till 05.02.2015. Even as per Rule-55 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 Where the ownership of a motor vehicle is transferred, the transferor shall report the fact of transfer in Form 29 to the registering authorities concerned in whose jurisdiction the transferor and the transferee reside or have their places of business. It is proved on record that complainant who was transferee could not file application for transfer of vehicle in question in the absence of (1) Certificate of registration (2) Certificate of Insurance qua vehicle in question which was 2nd hand vehicle. 14. It is proved on record that complainant who was transferee could not file application for transfer of vehicle in question in the absence of (1) Certificate of registration (2) Certificate of Insurance qua vehicle in question which was 2nd hand vehicle. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that factual position was informed to complainant and complainant voluntarily took De Facto possession of vehicle in question despite the fact that R.C. was in the name of Sh. Mehar Chand and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. Competent Automobiles Ltd. did not file any corroborative affidavit of independent person in order to prove the factum that complainant was informed by Competent Automobiles Ltd. at the time of receiving consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) on dated 26.08.2013 that R.C. of vehicle in question was not in the name of Competent Automobiles Ltd. Plea of Competent Automobiles Ltd. that factum to the effect that R.C. was not in the name of Competent Automobiles Ltd. was informed to complainant on dated 26.08.2013 is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). 15. Affidavit filed by Sh. K.K. Mehta is not sufficient because Sh. K.K. Mehta is Director of Competent Automobiles Ltd. and is an interested person and is not independent impartial person. Even Sh. K.K. Mehta Director Competent Automobiles Ltd. has been impleaded as adverse party in original consumer complaint. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned DCF/DCC has imposed excessive compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- (Ten thousand) is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has imposed reasonable equitable compensation and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in compensation order passed by learned DCF/DCC. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned DCF/DCC has granted excessive litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and learned DCF/DCC has granted reasonable litigation costs to complainant. 18. 5000/- (Five thousand) and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that complainant has engaged Advocate and has also paid litigation costs & other expenses and learned DCF/DCC has granted reasonable litigation costs to complainant. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that learned DCF/DCC has imposed excessive penalty of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per day from the date of complaint till handing over documents and on this ground appeal filed by appellant be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has imposed excessive penalty to the tune of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per day. State Commission is of the opinion that it is equitable in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to reduce penalty to equitable amount. 19. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned DCF/DCC is in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts and does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order of learned DCF/DCC warrants part interference relating to penalty of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per day from the date of complaint till handing over of documents of vehicle in question. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 20. In view of findings upon point No. 1 above appeal filed by Competent Automobiles Ltd. is partly allowed. It is ordered that penalty imposed by learned DCF/DCC to the tune of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand) per day from date of complaint till handing over of documents is reduced to Rs. 100/- (One hundred) per day from the date of complaint till handing over of documents. Remaining order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is. modified accordingly. Sale consideration receipt to the tune of Rs. 75000/- (Seventy five thousand) dated 26.08.2013 issued by Competent Automobiles Ltd. Annexure-C1 relating to vehicle in question shall form part and parcel of order. 21. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Consumer Forum/Commission 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. 21. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Consumer Forum/Commission 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.