Order-12.

Date-24/06/2015.

Complainant Biswajit Chakraborty by filing this complaint submitted that complainant purchased one Chevrolet Beatz LT Model Car (A.C. Car) through HDFC Auto Loan Vide A/c No. 1936039 from Speed Chevrolet (Speed Autotech Pvt. Ltd.) Kazi Najrul Islam Sarani, Kolkata on full payment of car price including cost of registration and for R.C. Book and insurance policy i.e. total Rs. 5,60,000/- only and seller Speed Autotech Pvt. Ltd. op no.1 after preparing registration certificate of the vehicle handed over the said RC Book to the present before that complainant on 15.09.2011 along with insurance policy etc. and this vehicle was hypothecated to HDFC Bank Ltd.

The vehicle Registration No. WB26R4468 Engine No. 10AB5Z111930090, Chasis No. MA6BFDGNBBT063080 and that RC Book was issued by the RTO North 24 Parganas by registering the said vehicle on 22.09.2011 having validity up to 15.09.2026.Presently the said vehicle is insured under Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. for the period from 15.09.2014 to 16.09.2015.Previously insurance policy was issued by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. for the period from 16.09.2013 to 15.09.2014 and Smart Card was issued on 20.09.2011 by the seller (Op no.1).

Fact remains that the said domestic car was purchased only for his family members particularly for his mother, father and Masimata who was suffering from several type of diseases and for their smooth attendance in the chambers of the doctors and nursing home the vehicle was purchased and in fact the said vehicle gave good service to them before detecting the present complicated position of the vehicle.Subsequently the said car suddenly faced an accident on 21.08.2014 and the car was damaged for which the matter was intimated to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and claim was submitted and after survey surveyor reported that Chasis No. of the vehicle is not matching and asked the complainant to correct the same.

On receipt of the said letter of op no.3, complainant forthwith reported the matter to op no.1 and manufacturing company to correct the same when they reported that to correct the same.So, complainant reported to op no.1 and prayed for time to correct after necessary correction.But ultimately all ops i.e. op nos. 1 to 3 that is including Regional Transport Authority did not act, did not take any step, on the contrary complainant was compelled to keep the said vehicle in the garage without using because op reported that such a vehicle cannot run and there is error in the Chasis number for which complainant was compelled to hire vehicle for journey of her aged mother, father and Masimata to medical centre and to doctors and spent huge money.Ultimately complainant reported the same to Dum Dum P.S., R.T.O. of North 24 Parganas and other ops but none took any initiative and complainant failed to correct the same because complainant is not the authority and for such sort of negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of op nos. 1, 2 & 3 and for which complainant was compelled to file this complaint for redressal and for rectification of the RC Book and also for releasing the claim as made by the complainant to op no.3 an compensation against op no.1 for not correcting the same and also for issuing such sort of RC Book by manipulation by the op no.1.

In fact in this case RTO appeared and submitted in details their views on 19.02.2015 but other ops did not appear except New India Assurance Company who by filing written statement submitted that as because there was mismatch of Chasis no.So, claim could not be disposed of and it was closed because complainant corrected the RC Book, but they admitted that it was an accident and claim was submitted.But surveyor submitted that as because there was mismatch of Chasis no., so, claim was not settled and closed and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.3.

In the above circumstances, we shall have to decide the complaint.

                                              Decision with reasons

On over all evaluation of the complaint and written version of op no.3 and also the vivid report of the RTO, it is clear that the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from op no.1 and op no.1 prepared the RC Book, Insurance Policy etc. and handed over the same to the complainant and practically a Smart Card was issued on 20.09.2011 and Insurance Policy was issued on subsequent to that.

So, apparently there was no chance of fault on the part of the complainant to make such note of Chasis No. because op no.1 issued all documents in support of that vehicle bearing No. WB-26R-4468 and he took all initiative for registration and for first Insurance Policy.It is also proved from the document filed by the RTO that RTO did not correct the same, though the matter was reported by the complainant.When it was detected that there was mismatch of the chasis number by the Insurance Policy and it is further found that Regional Transport Officer did not pay any heed, even after receipt of such complain made by the complainant.Op no. 1 refused to entertain such prayer of the complainant and fact remains that RTO of North 24 Parganas at Barasat after receipt of the summons of the case appeared and thereafter sent notice to the complainant on 04.03.2015 intimating that Sales Manager of Speed Chevrolet submitted a letter for correction of chasis number and engine number etc. and concerned dealer stated that they submitted Sale Letter (Form – 21) vide Chasis No. MA6BFBDGNBBT063080 and Engine No. 10AB5Z111930090 wrongly to Registering Authority for the purpose of registration.So, dealer submitted the correct form 21 invoices of the vehicle with correct chasis no. MA6BFBGNBBT063080 and Engine No. 10AB5Z111930090 and for which RTO directed the complainant on 04.03.2015 to appear with the vehicle before the authority.Thereafter RTO corrected the same.But before that RTO was sitting idle in his cold chamber and dealer was loitering in the filed by harassing the complainant.So, it is clear that RC Book shall be corrected by the RTO, Barasat as per step taken by the dealer after submission of such allegation because it is the duty of the dealer to send such Form no.21 that is Sale Letter after proper correction to RTO.

So, admittedly it is the fault of the op no.1, practically complainant suffered much and in fact he was unable to move his car from his garage for want of necessary correction of the said RC Book since 21.09.2014.Truth is that matter was reported to RTO, Barasat and op no. 1 in writing on 15.10.2014 for correction but RTO did nothing and op no.1 knew well for which car was kept in the garage of the complainant and complainant in place of that for her family members hired car daily and spent huge money.

So, it is clear that complainant has been harassed by RTO and op no.1 dealer and for their negative attitude, actually complainant spent huge money by hiring private cars.Most interesting factor is that RTO Barasat is District Officer of the Motor Vehicle Department.But he is sitting idle in the cold chamber since 15.10.2014.But that RTO of Barasat arose from his sleep when the notice was served by Registered Post with A/D by this Forum and forthwith appeared and expressed that they shall have to correct it and that submission was made by the RTO before this Forum on 20.02.2012 stating that they shall have to correct it.Then it is clear that from 15.10.2014 to 20.02.2015 RTO Barasat was not in mood to correct the same and another factor is that dealer did not also give any relief to the complainant for said correct sale form.

But general people know that all the RTOs do not move if energy tonic are not properly administered by the owners of the vehicle.Truth is that only to control them Court’s order is must, otherwise there is no administration in West Bengal to control them and they are always pressing vehicle owners to come through bypass and it is being continued for years together.But Administration is silent, blind to control their such sort of practice and in the present case it is proved beyond any manner of doubt.

So, such negative activities and negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op no.1 the dealer and op no.4 RTO Barasat are well proved and they are practically very cordial friends in their trade and dealers are obliging the RTO and RTO is obliging the dealers that is their business and in this case it is proved.No action had been taken by the RTO against the dealer when complainant submitted such complaint for correction on 15.10.2014.

Truth is that op no.1 has harassed much and did not pay any heed about such complaint of the complainant and equally op no.4 RTO Barasat closely related with the op no.1 also did not take any step, even after receipt of the complaint and that is the common picture in almost in all the cases for which there is a very good proverb “Nera bel tolai je-o-na” and that beltola is nothing but the RTO Barasat office of North 24 Parganas and if for any case anyone goes to the office bel tola (Alipore) for any prupose, he must have to come back with shaved head and these pictures are also everywhere in the RTO office and this picture is a common picture of all the districts.But there is no administration to check this precaurious condition that nothing shall be done by the RTO Office honestly but car owners shall have to follow by pass otherwise shall be harassed.

Particularly Barasat RTO is very famous because RTO Barasat and MVI were suspended for their dishonesty and it was detected that malpractices were rampant and that case is pending so nothing more is required to say about Barasat RTO, when instances are here and there about malpractice.But in this case only after receipt of the notice of the Forum when op no.4 Officer appeared, strong exception was taken and observing the attitude of the Forum forthwith they took initiative and they went to op no.1 and from whom they collect such letter including correct sale bill (Form 21) and thereafter they corrected it and issued a duplicate smart card, RC Book, rectifying the chasis no. This is the conduct of RTO.

Now question is how such sort of incident took place that in the RC Book, chasis no. was wrongly noted.It simply proves that MVI are gossiping there in the office without inspection of the actual chasis no. and engine no. as because they are obliged by the dealer and they prepared the said erroneous act and if it would not be inspected physically by the surveyor in future, complainant shall be arrested for plying theft car because for the laches of MVI, RTO.Dealer of vehicles and RTO of every district have their pact in their dealing which is proved from the fact, laches is on the part of the RTO and dealer for which complainant failed to get the Insurance claim.

So, invariably dealer must have to pay compensation to the complainant for the suffering of the complainant and also for spending huge money for hiring taxi for the treatment of the family members.RTO is also equally responsible.But we are not imposing any penalty.But RTO is cautioned that in future if any such sort of incident happens, in that case RTO shall be penalized and the matter should be brought to the notice to the Secretary, Transport Department.

No doubt Insurance Company has taken such plea that complainant failed to submit correct RC Bok for which the claim was closed.But this Forum cannot think for a moment that policy was issued without verification of the vehicle when policy was issued by the Insurance Company, then it is clear that Insurance Company and authorities on sitting on the table collected premium, only not verifying the vehicle and it is being continued Insurance Company not to verify physically and invariably the said vehicle at the time of issuance of the Insurance policy was not physically verified.

So, that is also laches on the part of the Insurance Company and it is not the laches on the part of the complainant.In fact op Insurance Company ought to have waited till it is rectified by the RTO.But Insurance Companies are here and there only for repudiating the claim, closing the claim for different technical fault and that is their business and they are only collecting the premium, not for giving claimed amount.

In this case it is proved already that there is or was no fault on the part of the complainant, but fault is on the part of the op no. 1 dealer, op no.4 RTO Barasat and also the op no.3 the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.But admitted fact is that the Ld. Lawyer for the Insurance Company submitted that they have assessed loss already and found that claim of the complainant was Rs. 41,000/- but they have assessed the loss of Rs. 9,410/-.

But we have failed to understand how against spending of Rs. 41,000/- for repairing the said vehicle, only Rs. 9,410/- was assessed as repairing cost when complainant repaired the said vehicle from the recognized service centre of Speed Chevrolet Auto Tech. Co. Ltd. and a bill was submitted and another fact is that from the policy, it is found that the value of the said car was Rs. 4,09,600/- and it is after depreciation that is after use of the vehicle and that policy was for the period from 16.09.2013 to 15.09.2014 and fact remains manufacturing year of the said vehicle was 2000-2011 and it was purchased at a cost of Rs. 5,60,000/- on 15.09.2011 and it was devalued by the Insurance company in the year 2013 to the extent of Rs. 4,09,600/-.

So, further depreciation cannot be made in view of the fact during that validity period of the policy being No. 51116000311130100000R22 for the period from 16.09.2013 to 15.09.2014 that accident took place and car was damaged and in the year 2013 the age of the car was only 2 years.But depreciation is made by the surveyor which is found arbitrary in nature and no doubt complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of the claim.But on proper consideration of the claim was for Rs. 41,000/- and considering the claim of the complainant and also the certificate authorization of ascertaining the same, we find that Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant after considering the said claim as finally disposed of and after noting down the correct chasis no. MA6BFBGNBBI063080 and op Insurance Company shall have to release that amount as final amount on final settlement of the said claim of the complainant in respect of the present vehicle.

Truth is that Insurance Company issued Insurance policy without physical verification of the vehicle when the RC Book bears wrong chasis number.But after accident somehow it was detected.Then it is no doubt the callous act on the part of the Insurance Company for which compensation can be awarded against them but we are not imposing any penalty or compensation.But op Insurance Company shall have to pay the repairing cost of Rs. 21,000/- after disposing of the said claim which has been closed and treating it as opened and dispose of finally as per order of this Forum.

But on overall evaluation of the entire materials, we are confirmed that op nos. 1, 3 & 4 are negligent and deficient in their discharging duties and service to the complainant.But in this regard op no.5 O.C. Dum Dum P.S. and op no.2 General Manager of G.M. India Ltd are not any way responsible for which complaint fails against them, but complaint succeeds against op nos. 1, 3 & 4.

Hence, it is

                                                    ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no. 3 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and same is allowed against op no.1 in exparte form when cost of Rs. 10,000/- and same is allowed against op no.4 but without any cost.But the complaint is dismissed against op no.2 & 5 without any cost.

Op no.3 New India Assurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of the claim made by the complainant for repairing cost of the vehicle within one month from the date of this order treating his claim as finally settled and it shall be paid to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which penal interest at the rate Rs. 100/- per day shall be assessed against op no.3 till full satisfaction of the decree.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain, agony and harassment and also for adopting such deceitful manner of business for not entertaining the grievance of the complainant when op no.1 falsely prepared such RC Book without submitting proper document and practically for the fault of the op no.1 complainant was compelled to hire taxi for treatment of his father, mother and the said car cannot be plied by the complainant as there was a defect in the chasis no. and there was every chance on the part of the complainant to be arrested if it would be ceased by the Police and found that their chasis no. is other than the RC Book.

Op no.1 is hereby directed to pay that amount within one month from the date of this order, failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op no.1 shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree.We are not imposing any penalty or compensation against op no.4 as it is Government institute, but the matter should be brought to the notice of the Secretary of Transport Department to keep watch about RTO and about their negligent activities.But fact remains the Regional Transport Authority (RTO) is/was negligent for discharging their duties which is proved.

Op no.3 is hereby directed to comply the order very strictly within one month, failing which penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.