The complainant Sri Chandradeep Rai has filed this complaint petition against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Paru-Muzaffarpur and two other (o.ps) to direct the o.ps to replace 2011 Model Bolero Jeep by providing 2013 Model vehicle or to pay Rs.5,75,000/- as vehicle cost, for realization of Rs. 20000/- as EMI installment with 18 % p.a. interest till realization, Rs. 1 lacs/- as mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.
The brief, facts of the case is that the complainant got quotation bearing no. 101 dated 30-01-2013 from o.p no.-2 for purchasing Bolero vehicle of Mahindra & Mahindra Company X. Show room Turbo white coloured price was Rs. 5,50168/-. The further case is that on the basis of above quotation, he got vehicle loan from o.p no.-1 of 4,10,000/- and paid rest amount as cash in the bank. Accordingly, bank issued D.D. No.- 041362 dated 23-03-2013 for Rs. 5,50,168/-. The complainant went in the show room of o.p on 25-03-2013 where no Bolero of white coloure was available, so the o.p delivered silver coloured vehicle at 7 P.M and also realized Rs.25000/- extra. Accordingly cash memo cum gate pass bearing no.-1280293 dated 25-03-2013 for Rs. 5,75,000/- was issued in the name of complainant. The description of the Bolero D.I. was mentioned in the paper issued by the o.p company and the same is Bolero D.I. manufacturer Mahindra & Mahindra Chasis No. MAIXA 2 GHKB5M 64729 Engine- No. GHB4L 61585, Manufacturing year 2013. The above Bolero Jeep bearing Registration No.—BR06PB-7344 was insured for Rs. 5,75,878/-. The complainant came at his house with the above vehicle where he found that the vehicle was of 2011 Model and manufacturing year 2011 was mentioned on the body, engine, staring etc. The complaint informed the o.p on the phone. O.ps directed him to come with vehicle at his showroom. The complainant went there where the o.ps requested for 15 days time for redressad of grievance of the complainant but he did nothing. The further case is that thereafter the complainant filed written complain before o.p no.-1 and o.p no.-1 requested the o.ps in written for redressal of the grievance of the complaint. The further case is that on 20-05-2013, the complainant further handed over his written complain to o.p no.-2 but he didn’t try to redressed his complain. The further case is that act of the o.ps is of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition- Photocopy of quotation of Sonali Autos Pvt. Ltd.–annexure-1, photocopy of Gate Pass ( Model EROD18853M )annexure-2, photocopy of Insurance paper annexure-3, photocopy of letter dated 16-05-2013 – to Sonali Autos (without signature) annexure-4, photocopy of letter of informant to Branch Manager of Sonali Auto Ltd. Patna- annexure-5.
On issuance of notices, o.p no.1 appeared and filed his w.s. on 31-12-2013 with prayer to delete his name from the complaint petition. It has been further mentioned in the w.s. that there is no deficiency in service of his part. He has mentioned in para-6 of his w.s. that as soon as he received the complaint of the complainant, requested o.ps no.-2 & 3 to redress the grievance of the complainant.
O.p no.-2 also appeared and filed his w.s. on 14-09-2013 with prayer to dismiss the complaint petition. It has been mentioned in the w.s. that the complaint is not maintainable because the same is based on wrong pretext. He has further mentioned that the vehicle supplied to him by co. are being sold by him on Commission. In para-4 of his w.s., he has stated that due to slip of Pen/tying mistake the manufacturing year has been wrongly typed as 2013 instead of 2011. Purchasing of Bolero as mentioned in para-3 of the complaint petition has been accepted by o.p in para-8 of the w.s. except manufacturing year. In para-13 of the w.s. it has been mentioned that on receiving the complaint by the complainant, he offered the complainant to negotiate and settle the dispute, if any. It has been further mentioned that the o.p is ready to negotiate with the complaint to settle the dispute within limited compass. On behalf of o.p no.-2, photocopy of letter dated 31-03-2013 issued by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. has been annexed.
Forum has proceeded ex. Party against o.p no.-3.
There is no allegation against o.p no.-1 in issuing the bank draft and sending the complaint of the complainant in the complaint petition. It has also been mentioned in the complaint petition that the complainant informed by o.p no.-1 i.e State Bank of India regarding the unfair trade practice adopted by o.p no.-2 and the o.p no.-1 sent a letter to o.p no.-2 to redress his grievance. The same has been annexed by complainant as annexure-4, so there is no allegation against o.p no.-1 regarding adoption of unfair trade practice, and as such o.p is not liable and there is no deficiency on his part.
The main grievance of the complainant is against the o.p no.-2. The allegation of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint petition against o.p no.-2 is that he deliverd Bolero Jeep of 2011 Model instead of 2013 Model and charged Rs. 5,75,878/- for the vehicle Mahindra Bolero D.I. Mahindra of 2013 Model. The complainant has annexed photocopy of quotation as annexure-1., Detail of the vehicle has not been mentioned only Cost of 1 Mahindra & Mahindra of D.I. Rs. 5,50,168/- has been mentioned. The complainant has also annexed cash memo cum gate pass as annexure-2, in which the detail of the vehicle such as model No., serial No, engine no. etc. has been mentioned. In the insurance paper Model 2013 manufacturing year 2013 has been mentioned. In the registration form of registering authority which has been filed on behalf of complainant later on, Model 2013 has been mentioned. The o.p has also stated in his w.s. that due to slip of Pen, typing mistake of manufacturing year has been wrongly typed as 2013 instead of 2011. The o.p no.-2 has not adduced any evidence on this point. He has only produced the photocopy of letter dated 31-03-2013 for Bolero D.I. 2WD issued by Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. In the above letter engine No. chasis no. of the vehicle is same but the manufacturing year has been mentioned as 12/2011. No other evidence has been adduced on behalf of o.p no.-2 and no authorized person on behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra has been examined to prove the fact of typing error. From the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, it transpires that o.p no.-2 delivered the vehicle of manufacturing year-2011 and realized rupees for the vehicle of manufacturing year 2013. As such there is deficiency on part of o.p no.-2.
As regards o.p no.-3 there is no allegation in the complaint petition that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, so o.p no.-3 is also not liable for the same.
On the basis of above discussions we are of the considered opinion that o.p no.-2 adopted unfair Trade Practice by supplying the complainant the vehicle of 2011 Model and realized cost for 2013 model and as such there is deficiency of his part.
In the circumstances the complaint petition is allowed with direction to o.p no.-2 to replace the vehicle in question by 2013 Model within 2 months from the date of issuing of certified copy of the order in default he is liable to pay Rs. 5,75,000/- as cost of vehicle Rs. 20,000/- as physical and mental harassment, Rs. 10000/- as litigation cost with 8 % interest p.a from the date of filing of complaint petition i.e. 30-05-2012 till realization. Let a copy of this order be furnished to both the parties as per rule.
