1. The complaint has filed the case against acquit persons regarding payment of compensation cost and entire invested amount. The complainant case in brief is that she purchased a car  from O.P No. 1 worth Rs 626,581 and deposited 1 lacs cash and rest amount Rs 526,581 was financed by O.P no. 4 HDFC Bank and the said vehicle was insured by O.P No. 3 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14.05.16 to 13.05.17. It is further submitted that the complainant is a S.T lady can read and write Hindi and lives nearby office of O.P no. 1. She expressed desire to purchase a new Tata Indigo BCS car on hypothecation, all officials inserted this complainant started welcoming by offering coco cola explained the facilities of the car etc. and on next day took KYC took signature on several papers. The banker insurers all were present at the office of O.P no. 1 at about 5.30 pm took cash Rs 100,000 on 25.04.16. The banker’s of HDFC told the complainant that the bank has financed Rs 5,26,581 and has to pay EMI per month Rs 11,163. Thereafter O.P no. 1 handed over the key of the car further they told the complainant the papers will be handed over on other day.  
2. The O.P No. 1 sold the complainant a Tata Indigo Car Ecs vide engine no. 475IDII4 KVYP42213 Chassis no.-  MAT607331EPK26771 which was registered as JH04K5711. It is further submitted that Chassis no. & Engine no. are same but showing manufacturing year October 2014 when insurance paper was handed over by O.P no. 1 firstly, insured by National Insurance period showing 29.04.16 to 28.04.17 policy no. 55270031146160188969 Mod- 2016, thereafter gave another insurance paper insured by Reliance General Insurance company for the period 14.05.16 to 13.05.17, Policy no. 6095262311000040 showing manufacturing year 2016 January. Thereafter, the complainant started to ply the car on road it started giving several problems. First of all music system became damaged, on complain no action was taken by the O.P, battery became powerless about which information was given but no action was taken. The official staff of the O.P told it was your fate you should change it. The A.C system became useless. There were no gas in its cylinder and when complainant put complain about it one staff Manish Kumar became furious and told you should not come with small problems. You should rectify them with your cost and told go away.  It is further stated that the problems came into light within a year and when it was complained to O.P no. 1 they became furious and scolded in filthy languages. On 03.04.17 the tire of the car was burst near about village Amjhar, P.S- Jama district- Dumka while coming to Dumka at 4.30 pm. The car fall back and got damaged several parts and body for which information was given to the Ops who told the complainant to repair the body and entire car and to submit for the claim but when information was submitted to National Insurance Company he refused to pay as the policy is fake. The O.P no. 1 told the complainant about the Insurance made reliance Insurance Company.
3. It is further submitted that after all the documents were looked into carefully then it was found that there were several doubts such as registration card showing manufacturing dt. October 2014, HDFC bank showing the same chassis and engine number and registration meaning thereby Reliance Industries manufacturing dt. January 2016. If the manufacturing year 2016 for the registration card is false, if the registration card in which the manufacturing dt. Is October 2014 for the Insurance and financers certificate is false and when the owner’s manual and service book was checked there were no any information about manufacturing year no seal and no date not only so delivery challan is also not giving the information of the manufacturing year, retail invoice dt. 25.06.16 is also blank, second free service showing invoice dt. 25.10.14 with same chassis and engine number, fourth service also showing 25.10.14. It is further submitted that O.P no. 1, 2, 3 and 4 all have their own collaborations to sale old or seized vehicle to their customers who are in joy of purchasing cars, vehicle, have to put faith but on the other hand O.P deliberately knowingly in order to gain money have bluffed, cheated the complainant by dealing wrongly serving wrongly, putting in loss damages by suppressing material facts as such the complainant is entitled to get back the entire invested amount as well as cost, consequences, compensation, mental agony, harassment for the deficiency of service, neglizency, unfair trade practices of the O.Ps and are also liable for punishment in the section of Indian Penal Code.
4. The complainant has invested about Rs 415,593 on the said vehicle. It is further submitted that the vehicle has been surrendered to the O.P no. 1 on 04.04.17. The same is lying in the control of the O.P no. 1. The cause of action arose on 25.04.16 when the vehicle was purchased and hypothecated by the HDFC bank on 29.04.16 when the National Company insured the vehicle on 14.05.16 when the vehicle was insured by reliance company and all those it is when the complainant put the complain before O.P no. 1 for problems in the vehicle and on 05.04.17 when the vehicle got damaged due to burst of the tyre and on 26.05.17 when the complainant wrote a letter to the O.P to pay the claim amount and on 01.06.17 when the complainant sent a pleader notice to the O.P. It is further submitted that the complainant tried to settle the dispute by requesting the O.P to return the invested amount or to provide a new car but O.Ps paid no heed.
5. It is further submitted that the complainant has claimed the following reliefs and prayed that O.P be directed to pay the entire invested amount of the complainant or be directed to pay the compensation not less than of 1 lakh. And also claimed Rs 415593 as principal amount invested on the said car with Rs 60,000 as cost and also claimed the compensation with 12% interest till the realization of amount sought. The complainant has filed certain documents along with complaint petition.
6. In spite of publication of notice the O.P no 2 and 3 that is Manager, Classic Automobiles Dealer, Aam Gachi, Dumka road,  Deoghar, Jharkhand and O.P no. 3 Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Gayatri Enclave 3^rd floor, K road, Bistupur,  Dumka sent appeal and vide letter sheet 14.12.17 the proceedings against O.P no. 2 and 3 was started exparte.
7. O.P no. 1 i.e; Manager, Tiwari Automobiles (Pvt) Ltd. service and sale centre, Airport Road, Lakhikundi, P.S+ sub+ Dist. Dumka, Jharkhand has appeared on 28.08.17 and filed his written statement on 29.01.18. It is submitted by this O.P that present case in the course of proceedings against O.P no. 2 and 3 and the complainant has filed this case making several false and baseless allegations upon O.P no. 1. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was insured and the consumer complaint can directly claim this grievance from the insurer and this O.P no. 1 cannot in any manner be responsible for any recovery of the claim from the insurer. It seems that the present consumer under a wrong instruction has filed the case and admittedly since the vehicle in question met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver so the O.P no. 1 cannot be in any manner be held liable for the same.
8. It is wrongly submitted that O.P no. 1 sold an old car to the complainant and the owner lied upon the complainant to prove the same. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the O.P no. 1 after meeting all the formalities and after receiving the initial amount on and after receiving he loan amount after proper insurance delivered the aforesaid vehicle to the consumer after pre delivery inspection and initially got the vehicle insured from National Insurance Company on subject to the payment of Rs 22,808 towards insurance total premium dated 29.04.2016 and the consumer was directed to make the arrangement of the said amount within a day or 2 but the complainant after receiving the aforesaid vehicle in question did not arrange the premium amount of the insurance and the insurance due to non-payment of the premium was cancelled by the insurance company. It is further submitted that the complainant was informed about the same after which the consumer arranged money insured for the premium of insurance O.P no. 1 get the vehicle in question insured from Reliance Insurance dt. 14.05.2016 after the payment of premium amount of Rs 24,810 and the vehicle was insured from 14.05.16 to 13.05.17 with O.P no. 3. It is out and out the vague statement that the vehicle in question was used one and it could be evident from the document filed by the consumer/ complainant before this court with the chassis name and engine number the same was initially insured by O.P no. 5, 6 O.P no. 3 has made the financed for the same chassis no which clearly proves the fact that the vehicle in question was the vehicle which was delivered for the first time to the complainant.
9. Moreover for the satisfaction of the complainant the court as well as the DTO Dumka may be directed to submit the report for this regard which would rather clarify the status of the vehicle in question. The vehicle was delivered for the first time to the complainant the vehicle was all new and complainant after being fully satisfied received the vehicle in question and it is upon the consumer to maintain the vehicle in question and any mishandling and rough use of any vehicle can cause damages and the O.P no. 1 cannot be held responsible for the same and say the assertions of the complainant regarding delivery of used vehicle stands incorrect. And it is also admitted by the complainant that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 30.04.17 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver in question and as mention above and only with the intention to harass the insured the O.P no. 1 the complainant as implicated this O.P in this case.
10. As stated upon the vehicle in question was insured from O.P no. 3 so the complainant can make his settlements for the damages incurred in the accident and the O.P no. 1 in no manner cannot be held responsible for the same and prayed to accept the so cause/ written statement and drop the present proceedings against O.P no. 1. The O.P no. 4 Manager HDFC Bank, Dumka, Thana road, Dumka, P.O+P.S – Dumka, Sub+ Dist.- Dumka, Jharkhand, appeared and filed his written statement on 22.11.17. He has clearly stated in his written statement that present complainant is not a Consumer within The meaning of Consumer Protection Act. That since the complainant has availed only loan facility from the answering opposite parties and hence the relation was that of debtor and creditor. The law is well settled that where relationship of parties is that of debtor and creditor as in this instant case the consumer protection act does not and cannot apply as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no specific allegation against the answering opposite parties and the claim of the complainant is against the insurance policy availed from either Reliance General Company or National Insurance Company. The complainant has his grievances against the Insurance Company and the Answering Opposite Party being the financer has no role in the issuance of the policy to the Complainant and hence the complainant has made illegal claim and allegations against the answering opposite party.
11. It is therefore submitted that answering opposite parties has no role in issuing the insurance policy and therefore not liable to make any payment for the insured amount as has been claimed by the complainant and further prayed that complaint case be dismissed with cost against answering opposite parties and the money of answering opposite parties be expunged from the instant complaint case.
12. The opposite party number 5 Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Shyam Bazar, Dumka, P.O+P.S- Dumka, Sub+dist- Dumka, appeared and filed his written statement on 18.10.17 and has stated that insurance policy no. 55270031146160188969 for the period 29.04.16 to 28.04.17 has not been issued by any branch of National Company and it is forged and fabricated policy, so the National Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner in this case. He has clearly stated that the petition policy has not been issued by National Insurance Company. It is fake policy and so the National Insurance Company is not liable to make any payment to the complainant and has prayed as the National Insurance Company has not issued petition policy for the period of 29.04.16 to 28.04.17 from any branch of National Insurance Company said policy is forged and fabricated policy so National Insurance company is not liable to make any payment to the complainant and prayed to accept his written statement and also exonerate him from this case.
13. Considering the complaint and also written statement of the O.Ps the following points has to be decided.

1. Whether the O.P no. 1 has sold an old car in lieu of new brand car
2. Whether the O.P no. 1 is liable to pay back the amount invested by the complainant or to give a new brand car of the same model
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for mental agony, harassment and for deficiency of services, unfair trade practices, bluff and cheating

Findings

14.  The complainant in support of his case filed some documents which are as follows :-

  Exhibit 1 – delivery challan dt. 25.04.16

  Exhibit 2 – retail invoice dt. 25.06.16

  Exhibit 3 – second free service token

  Exhibit 4 – is retail invoice dt. 28.09.16

  Exhibit 5 – fourth free service token

  Exhibit 6 – is certificate of Insurance cum dealer schedule issued by National  Insurance Company

  Exhibit 7 –  is insurance policy issued by Reliance insurance company

  Exhibit 8 – is statement of details of loan by HDFC Bank 

  Exhibit 9 – is photocopy of the information that is SD entry 07/2017.

   Exhibit 10 – is the certificate of registration of vehicle no. JH04K5711

   Exhibit 11 – is the driving license

   Exhibit 12 – is the car identification and record.

   Exhibit 13 – is pleader notice

   Exhibit 14 – is the money receipt issued by Tiwari Automobile dt. 25.04.17

                        And also filed the affidavit as a witness of PW1 Marthus Hansdak and PW2 Panwati Marandi.

15. The complainant has alleged that O.P no. 1 has sold an old car in lieu of new car to him and in support of this allegation the complainant has drawn the attention of this forum towards the Exhibit no. 6 and 7 which is the insurance policy issued by National Insurance Company and Reliance Insurance Company respectively. And in this document the manufacturing year of the vehicle was mentioned as January 2016. But the Exhibit 10 which is certificate of registration of the said vehicle in which the manufacturing year of the vehicle concerned has written October 2014. It is also submitted by the learned lawyer for the in exhibit 3 and Exhibit 5 both are the token of second and fourth year service in which the invoice dt. Is mentioned as 25.10.2014 and in this document the chassis and engine no. is the same. But this document does not show from whom any by whom office it was issued. There is no stamp or signature on this paper. So far as registration of vehicle Exhibit 10 is concerned the month of manufacturing is written October 2016 and Exhibit 6 and 7 clearly mentions the date of manufacturing is January 2016. To clarify this confusion the complainant has not brought any report of the expert to establish this fact that the car concerned was old one and it was sold to him by O.P no. 1 that is Tiwari Automobile. In this complainant petition has mentioned that from the date of purchasing he started to ply the car on the road and found several problems.   First of all music system became damaged, battery became powerless. He informed the O.P but not response and A.C system became useless. There were no gas in its cylinder when complainant put complain to the O.P but it was rectified and all the problems came into light within a year when it was complained to O.P no. 1 he became furious and scolded in filthy languages.                                                                                                                                  The complainant claimed that he on his own expenses rectified the difficulties, that is music system, battery and ac etc but regarding this no documents or money receipts have been filed by him.
16. The PW1 and PW2 also supported this fact of both the PW2 in Para 6 expanded AC gas refill Rs 800, battery and Music System Rs 12,000 but he has not submitted any single bill regarding it. Apart from that no expert report on the record to show that the vehicle concerned was old one. The O.P no. 1 in his written statement has clearly mentioned that he handed over the new car to the complainant and after full satisfaction he took the possession of the car.
17. It is further submitted by the O.P no. 1 that after full satisfaction the said car was financed by O.P no. 4. If there are any discrepancies in the manufacturing year the loan could not be sanctioned. It clearly proves and clarifies the fact that the vehicle in question was vehicle which was delivered for the first time to the consumer and the vehicle which was delivered to the complainant was of new and after being fully satisfied the complainant received the vehicle in question and it is upon the consumer to maintain the vehicle in question and any mishandling and rough use of any vehicle can cause damages for which O.P no. 1 cannot be held responsible for the same.
18. Hearing this case what the problems were faced by the complainant regarding the vehicle concerned was after the delivery but he has not mentioned the particular date on which he faced the said difficulties. Moreover the complainant purchased the vehicle on 25.04.16 and just after one year that is 03.04.17 due to burst of tyre met with an accident and the car was damaged badly. Apparently it is due to mishandling and rough use of the vehicle by the complainant and due to that the car caused the accident and it could not be said for the petitioner accident O.P no. 1 is responsible. The rash and negligent driving of any vehicle is dangerous and it cannot cause the accident whether the car is new one or old one. And for that damage the dealer that is O.P no. 1 cannot be held responsible in any way. Apparently the car sold to the complainant was not old one.
19. As far as question of liability of O.P no. 1 is concerned to pay back the entire amount invested by the complainant and give the new brand car to the complainant is concerned the O.P no. 1 is simply the dealer and selling the car of Tata Motors as soon as he sold the car to the complainant and complainant that is fully satisfied received possession of the car his liabilities is only to the extent to providing he proper services to the complainant regarding the vehicle. In the record he O.P no.1 has never refuse to give proper services to the complainant regarding the car. It is admitted fact that after accident the complainant surrendered the vehicle in the service centre of O.P no. 1 on 04.04.17 and the consumer is still selling in the services centre of the O.P. As such the O.P no. 1 is not liable to pay back the entire amount invested by the complainant or to give the new brand car. Only in case of manufacturing defect the car could not be exchanged. Here in this case in the said car there is no manufacturing defect and also it is in case of the complainant that the car has manufacturing defect.
20. As far as the claim of the complainant is concerned it simply related to the accident claimed for which the complainant who claimed the relief from insurance company. Here are two insurance company made as party in this case. One is O.P no. 5 National Insurance Company Ltd. and second is O.P no. 3 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. As far National Insurance Company that is O.P no. 5 is concerned he has clearly mentioned in his written statement that no such insurance was made by any branch of the complainant vehicle. Supporting this compensation the O.P no. 1 in his written statement in Para 5 has stated that initially vehicle got insured from National Insurance Company on subject of payment of Rs 22,808 towards Insurance policy period from Insurance Policy Premium dt. 29.04.16 and the consumer was directed to make an arrangement of the said amount within a day or two but the consumer after receiving the aforesaid vehicle in question did not arrange the premium amount of the insurance and the insurance due to no payment of the premium was cancelled by the Insurance Company. Then thereafter he informed the consumer/ complainant was informed about the same after which the O.P no. 1 got the vehicle in question insured from Reliance Insurance Company dt. 14.05.16 after the payment of premium amount of Rs 24,810 and the vehicle was insured from 14.05.16 to 13.05.17 with O.P no. 3. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant in his complainant petition on Page 4 Para (v). He admitted this fact that “the respondent no. 1 told the complainant about the Insurance made by Reliance Insurance Company.” Apparently the O.P no. 5 National Insurance Company could not be held responsible for any claim of the complainant as the vehicle was not insured with National Insurance Company.
21. As far as second Insurance Company is concerned that is Reliance Insurance General Insurance Company that is O.P no. 3 is concerned in spite of publication in newspaper he did not drawn up and appear before the court as such against him the proceedings here exparte wide order sheet dt. 14.12.17. From the perusal of Exhibit 7 which is the certificate of Insurance Policy issued by Reliance General Insurance Company. From the perusal of Exhibit 7 it appears that the vehicle concerned was insured from 14.05.16 to 13.05.17 and from the perusal of engine no. and chassis no. which is fully confirmed that the vehicle in question was fully correct. It is also apparent that at the time of the Insurance there was no registration of the vehicle and for the registration no. written new and the insured declared value was shown as Rs 549,450.
22.  It is also admitted fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident on 03.04.17 which is within the insured period and it is also admitted that vehicle in question was surrendered by the complainant in the service centre of O.P no. 1 on 04.04.17 which is after the accident. Apparently the O.P no. 3 has full knowledge about the accident. As the office of the O.P no. 3 is within Dumka Town and O.P no. 3 is Nat who is avoiding to pay claim of the complainant. As the O.P no. 3 has not appeared in this case during entire period after the publication in newspaper.
23. As such the responsibility of O.P No. 1,2,4 and 5 regarding the payment of the claim of the complainant in this case has no responsibility. So they are exempted from the liabilities of the payment of the claim of the complainant or damages to the complainant. Such O.P no. 1, 2 ,4 and 5 are exempted from this case.
24. As far as responsibility and payment of claim is concerned it is only upon the O.P no.3 which has benefitted Insurance Company of the complainant which clearly indicates from Exhibit 7. Such O.P no. 3 is directed to pay entire damages caused and compensation to the complainant. In view of the petition aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion and It is therefore, we

Ordered

            That O.P no. 3 Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Gayatri Enclave 3^rd floor, K road, Bistupur, Dumka, P.S+ Dist.- Dumka is directed to pay the complainant Rs 415,593 as principal amount, Rs 100,000 as compensation and also Rs 60,000 as the cost of litigation with 12% interest from the date of filing of this case and till realization.

                              This case and the same is hereby disposed off on contest.

              Let a copy of this order to be provided to both the parties free of cost. Thus this case is disposed off on contest with cost.