Presented by Smt. Anjali Behera, Member .
Brief note of the facts :-
Complainant purchased the Chassis No. MA3EAA61502054101, Engine No. F8DN4829707 vehicle in issue Maruti Alto Car vide Engine No. F8DN4829707 from Opposite party No.1(one) and 2(two) and got the insurance done by Opposite Party No.3(three) in this case Complainant paid Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and booked the car on Dt.31/05/2012 with an assurance of delivery of the car by Dt.21/06/2012 and he got the car on Dt.21/06/2012 along with delivery challan and a service book and got assurance from the Opposite Parties to set other papers soon on Dt.27/05/2013 he got a phone call from Opposite party No.3(three) that insurance of the vehicle will expire on Dt.04/06/2013 so he shoulder insure the same to be saved from any inconveniences. This Complainant was astonished as he purchased the car on Dt.21/06/2012 so insurance expiry should occur on Dt.20/06/2013 so he went to enquire and got to know that the car was priorly sold to one Bhagaban Pradhan of Birmaharajpur and the same was got returned and resold to the Complainant for which old insurance coverage was active and expired on Dt.04/06/2013 so the Complainant found he has been sold with an old car as a new car and dragged the attention of the Opposite Parties but being un heard has no choice to file this Complaint.
Complainant relied on the following documents to establish his cause :
Xerox copies of in-voice slip No of Rs.3,13,783/-(Rupees three lakh thirteen thousand seven hundred eighty three)only.
Insurance paper.
Sale Certificate.
Delivery Challan.
Temporary Registration Certificate.
Pleaders Notice postal receipt and Acknowledgment.
Registration Certificate of RTO, Bargarh.
Opposite Party duly noticed Opposite Party No.1(one) and 2(two) filed their version on Dt.06/11/2013 Opposite Party No.3(three) filed their version on Dt.09/07/2014 denying all the allegations raised against them by the Complainant and prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
Opposite parties 1(one) and 2(two) have filed the following documents to establish their case :-
Insurance paper in the name of Bhagaban Pradhan showing the Engine and chasis No same as the one of the Complainants car and vehicle identification No. MA3EAA61S02054101 and the date 04/06/2012 vide policy No. 35101031126131355262.
Endorsements Certificate Transferring the insurance in the name of this Complainant from the policy of Bhagaban Pradhan for the same policy No. on dated 25/06/2012.
To and vehicle charges invoice for Complainant total amounting to Rs.2,83,737/-(Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand seven hundred thirty seven)only date 10/06/2012 order date 10/06/2012.
To and vehicle charges invoice for Bhagaban Pradhan Total amount Rs.2,83,737/-(Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand seven hundred thirty seven)only order date 31/05/2012 vide Engine No.F8DN4830030, Chasis No. NA3EAA61802054180.
Insurance paper in favour of vehicle of Bhagaban Pradhan date 27/06/2012 for Engine No. and chassis No. mentioned in No.4(four) above for insurance coverage from Dt.27/06/2012 to Dt.26/06/2013.
Insurance paper in favour of Bhagaban Pradhan policy No.35101031136133254665 date 06/06/2013 for Engine No.4830030, chassis No.2054180 insurance coverage from Dt.27/06/2013 to 26/06/2014.
Hearing was done on Dt.01/09/2014 counsels of parties envisaged their respective causes and issues in great length and details after hearing and perusal of all documents filed with the case record following points come out -
(1) Opposite Party No.3(three) filed their version on Dt.20/06/2014 wherein they have admitted that there was a policy issued in the name of one Bhagaban Pradhan for a vehicle bearing Engine No. FBDN483003 and chassis No. MA3EAA61502054180 on Dt.04/06/2012 and later issued another policy to this Complainant on Dt.21/06/2012 and it is said that a policy has been issued in the name of Bhagaban Pradhan on Dt.21/06/2012 for the vehicle and same Engine number and chassis No. of the Complainant. There are papers which shows that the policy issued to Bhagaban Pradhan is later transferred to the name of Complainant Ram Krushna Das. Hence all the matters shows callousness of the Opposite party No.3(three) as well as other Opposite Parties in conducting their businesses and which is putting Consumer in disadvantageous condition and problems.
(2) Papers of sale and insurance in the name of both the Complainant and Bhagaban Pradhan is there along with two different Engine names and chassis names and the Opposite parties are calling it just a clerical mistake but a few points are there which speaks nagatively against them.
(2A) Why the vehicle of Complainant got insured in the name of Bhagyaban Pradhan on Dt.04/06/2012 when he purchased the same on Dt.21/06/2012, through he booked the vehicle on Dt.31/05/2012.
(2B) If two booking were simultaneously vide and this a clerical mistake how and why the policy dated 04/06/2012 was later on transferred in the name of Ram Krushna Dash.
(2C) Why the insurance coverage of the vehicle of Complainant expires when he purchased the vehicle on Dt.21/06/2012.
And all the above points show and cross negligence on the part of Opposite Parties and which forced the Complainant to think that he has been supplied with an old car and was emotionally suffered.
(3) The papers filed with the case record also showing different facts like one to and vehicle charges invoice shows order date pf the Complainant on Dt.16/06/2012 where as he booked the vehicle on Dt.31/05/2012 and paid Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only on that day and the amount was totalled to be Rs.3,13,783/-(Rupees three lakh thirteen thousand seven hundred eighty three)only where as other papers in used on Dt.10/06/2012 shows price totaled as Rs.2,83,737/-(Rupees two lakh eighty three thousand seven hundred thirty seven)only with a discount of in Rs.26,432/-(Rupees twenty six thousand four hundred thirty two)only and order date being Dt.10/06/2012 and all this point towards manipulation of papers while preparation of sale papers.
(4) Another allegation of Complainant is that he is supplied with an old car and this point is dis covered after one year when he got the call from insurance company about expiry of insurance of his vehicle points to 17 days of his excepted actual expiry as he purchased the vehicle and got delivery on Dt.21/062012. The thing is he is using the car since one year with out any problem and mal function and through he has been sold with an old car because of the problem in preparation of papers of the Opposite Party forum is in dark for what all this discrepantly occured when it is a simple process of sale and when only two sales occurred in a period of 15 days why this errors occurred which created problems for the Complainant.
(5) Complainant filed a petition to file further evidence of one person and that is after the final hearing Completed contention of the Complainant that he was able to know about the supply of old car to him from this man and believed that he was sold an old car however it has also come out that this person is an employee of the Opposite Parties who just left the Opposite Party company for reason and the statement of this person which created doubt in the minds of this Complainant is not proper because if so he himself being an employee of the Opposite Parties were a part to the whole negligence in handling customers.
(6) Complainant have already used the vehicle with complete satisfaction for one whole year and only the insurance problem and statement of some person created doubt in their mind further, the transfer of the insurance from the other customer as per papers filed occurred in the same month that is Dt. 25 June 2012 and must have been Communicated at that time and the Complainant did not raised any complaint or dissatisfaction at that point while insurance papers issue changed to his name and returns the vehicle or started any dispute but started disputing after a whole years when renewals time approached and he got some information from an X-employee of the vehicle company who may have created this confusion to reset his our vengeance if faced action for which left the job.
(7) The Opposite parties admitted the human mistake about maintaining and handling the sale papers and insurance papers which is negligence on their part for sure.
Complainant sought supply of a new car in place of the present car after using the same for whole year when he could have very well realized the issue at the earliest when supplied with the insurance papers which clearly mentioned the transfer of insurance papers to his name in June 2012 and if his contention accepted seller will be surely prejudiced as the main business of the Opposite parties is selling new Cars and they do not deal with selling of old Cars more over they supplied details of other sale too and accepted their mistake Under the above discussed facts and circumstance and application of due mind considering carefully the submission of parties forum decided that Opposite Party jointly and severally Committed negligence in handling their customer and also liable of deficiency in service.
Hence forum orders that :-
Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for all the disturbances named to the Complainant for their litigant action, and another Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand)only for the litigation expenses within one month from the date of Order i.e.16/12/2014, failing which the total reward amount carries an interest of @12% per annum till actual materialization of the award.
Opposite Parties are also directed to follow strict sense of business norms and maintain a good standard while handling their customers and ensure clean paper work at the time of purchase to save people from any future hurdles.
Disposed accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree,
(Smt Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r.
