ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

Page 1. Order CC 217/2013

      The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a vehicle bearing number DL 2C AM 7622 vide chasis number MALAM515CLCM083390, Engine Number G4LABM802534 from respondent Number 1 on a sale consideration amount of Rs 456070/- which included the insurance amount of Rs. 10850/-.  The insurance cover note was to be prepared by OP2 and OP3 at the instance of OP1.  It is alleged by the complainant that the OP had issued the covernote with its fake policy no. FPB/10815581/11/02/D1114D in his name as well as in the name of one Mr. Yogesh Gupta, in which number 2 and 3 had mentioned the model and year of manufacturing as 2011 instead of the complainant’s vehicle Model 2012 as well as the chasisas 074793, Engine No. 415416 instead of Chasis number MALAM-51CLCM083390, Engine No. GALABM802534.  It is further alleged by the complainant that OP no. 2 and 3 came into action after the service of the demand notice , dated 5.4.2013 by the complainant as a result of which the Ops issued correct policy vide policy no. FPV/I1193196/11/02/D1114D for the period 16.2.2012 to 15.2.2013.  The complainant alleged deficiency in services on the part of the OP. Hence, the complaint.

     The OP has filed written statement and has admitted that while issuing the policy in lieu of the two cover notes i.e. 31299821 and 21292071 through a clerical oversight there was a mix up of details relating to the vehicles and the two policies bearing the same number FPV/I0815581/11/02D111 4D were issued to the complainant and Mr. Yogesh Gupta which had incorrect details of chasis and engine numbers.  It is further stated by the OP that this was a case of clerical error due to pure oversight and

Page 2. Order CC 217/2013

there was no intention of cheating. The OP also states that when the inadvertent issue of policies was brought to their notice  the fresh policy no. FPV/11193196/11/02 D1114D.  OP have prayed for the dismissal of complaint with heavy cost.

     The complainant has filed rejoinder to reiterate the facts as pleaded in the complaint.

     The complainant has filed evidence by way of his affidavit.  He has relied upon the document Cw1/1 to CW1/9.

     ShivaliSharma, Sr. Executives of the OP has filed her affidavit and reiterate the facts as pleaded in her written statement.

     We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the record.

The purpose of Consumer Protection Act is to redress the grievance of a consumer. The act has not been enacted with a view to enrich a consumer for a mistake on the part of the OP.  In the case in hand ,the OP had issued a wrong policy in favour of the complainant under a clerical mistake which was also not noted by the complainant immediately after the issuance of the policy.  The policy had run its course  and had remained in force throughout the  period of one year for which it was purchased. When the complainant pointed out the mistake to the OP by means of a demand notice, the OP had corrected its mistake and had issued a new policy with correct particulars. The grievance of the complainant has, therefore, been already redressed by the OP. Admittedly no loss has been suffered by the complainant due to the mistake of the OP. Since the grievance of

Page 3. Order CC 217/2013

the OP had already been redressed,there remained no dispute between the parties which required adjudication by this forum by means of a complaint U/s 12 of the consumer Protection Act. We are , therefore, inclined to hold that the present complaint is not maintainable as there existed no dispute between the parties,  at the time of its filing and the complainant had also lost his character as a consumer . Consequently we see no merits in this complaint which is hereby dismissed,

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................