SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT: - Complainant Prasanta Kumar Patel has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. This case is high lighting the wrong doings of Magma Fincorp Limited, who is realizing service charges for providing service but not providing such service as per their own advertisement and promise.

2. The case of the complainant is that he approached the O.P.No.1 to finance for a Maruti Omnivan in the month of June,2007. O.P.No.1 sanctioned and released the finance and complainant bought the van on dt.22.6.2007, which was duly registered vide Regd.No.OR-15-L-3846 for private use. As per requirement, a copy of the R.C.book of the vehicle was supplied to O.P.No.1, Hence O.P.No.1 was aware of the fact that the vehicle was registered as private vehicle.                                                                                          

1. Complainant insured the vehicle on dt.22.6.2007 with National Insurance company Ltd and submitted the insurance papers to the O.P.No.1.  O.P.No.1 asked the complainant that hence forth it will take out the insurance as provided in the loan agreement. Complainant was paying Rs.5,222/- per month towards installment for repayment of the loan. Complainant was asked to pay Rs.400/- extra over Rs.5,222/- (this is towards service charge for obtaining insurance) so that O.P.No.1 will take out the insurance from the 2^nd year onwards. Complainant was regularly paying Rs.5,622/- per month to the O.P.No.1 till filing of the case.
2. The first insurance policy was valid till dt.21.6.2008. Thereafter as the O.P.No.1 was realizing Rs.400/- per month from the complainant, it was supposed to take out the insurance of the vehicle for the rest of the period of the loan, but complainant was not in the know whether insurance was taken out for his vehicle or not. The O.P.no.1, according to the complainant had taken out insurance of the vehicle for the period from dt.22.6.2009 to dt.21.6.2010 as it had given a insurance certificate.
3. On dt.07.2.2010, the insured vehicle met with an accident damaging several parts. This  fact was Intimated to both the O.Ps.  O.P.No.2 deputed a surveyor for inspection of the damaged vehicle. Complainant filed his claim before the insurer basing on the estimate given by M/s Odyssey Motors Pvt. Ltd. But O.P.No.2 delayed in payment, hence complainant repaired the vehicle at his own cost and incurred expenditure of Rs.9,999/-. But this amount was not sufficient for total repair of the vehicle, so the complainant could not finance for the total repair of the damaged vehicle from his own pocket.
4. As the O.P.No.2 did not pay the insured amount, complainant ran to the offices of both the O.Ps several times, but to no effect. Finally on dt.10.01.2011 after a gap of around one year, the Claims Officer of O.P.No.1 intimated the complainant that his claim with O.P.No.2 has been repudiated on the ground that though the vehicle was registered as private vehicle, the policy bond issued by the O.P.No.2 shows that the vehicle was registered under commercial package policy.
5. The complainant was unable to get any explanation from the O.P.No.1  as to how the vehicle was insured under commercial package policy. The O.P.No.1 was supplied with the registration certificate of the vehicle and according to the complainant, O.P.No.1 was negligent in taking out insurance under a different head that the one for which it was registered with the registering authority. According to the complainant, O.P.No.2 is also similarly deficient in providing service. As the premium for insurance for a private vehicle is lower than that of a commercial package vehicle, for which higher premium was paid, the O.P.No.2 is not justified in repudiating the claim of the complainant. On the basis of the above allegations, complainant has filed this case and prays that Rs.25,000/- be awarded in favour of the complainant towards the financial loss, pain , sufferings, mental agony and harassment.

                Documents filed by the complainant in support of his case are Xerox copies of

1. Reliance General Insurance  Company Motor Claim form dt.07.2.2010 (2) Notice from Tapas Kumar Palai, Claims Officer, Magma Fincorp Ltd, Branch Office, Rourkela dt.10.02.2011 (3) Tax Invoice of Odyssey Motors Pvt.Ltd. dt.22.02.2010 (3 nos) (4) Reliance General Insurance from dt.22.06.2009mto dt.21.06.2010 (5) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Dt.22.06.2007 (6) Claim under policy dt.10.01.2011.
6. Both the O.Ps appeared through their Advocates and filed their separate written versions. In itsVersion, O.P.No.2 categorically denies that no policy of insurance was for the vehicle No.OR-15-L-3846 in favour of any Prasanta Kumar Patel for the period from dt.22.6.2010 to dt.21.6.2011. It also furthercategorically denies that any repudiation was made by the O.P.No.2 regarding the claim of the complainant. According to O.P.No.2, as there was no insurance of the alleged vehicle, no repudiation of claim arises out of the said vehicle. So, neither the O.P.No.2 is liable to indemnify the claim nor compensate for the loss if any suffered by the complainant. Hence, O.P.No.2 claims that the present case is not maintainable against it and liable to be dismissed. O.P.No.2 has not filed any document as they had no insurance coverage of the alleged vehicle as per their submission in the written version.
7. O.P.No.1 has filed its version admitting that the alleged vehicle was financed by them and alsofurther admitted regarding purchase and registration of the vehicle. O.P.No.1 claims that it rentalise the insurance policy and accordingly, insurance premium was submitted for covering commercial vehicle. According to O.P.No.1, the insurance certificate of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., for the period from dt.22.6.2009 to dt.21.6.2010 has been handed over to the complainant in due time. Complainant raised no objection though the insurance was made for commercial vehicle. According to O.P.no.1, the complainant for his own gain registered the vehicle as private by paying lower tax and cheated the Government authority by not paying the actual tax. The hire purchase agreement dt.30.6.2007 contains an arbitration clause and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
8. According to the O.P.no.1, complainant has not hired or availed of any service from it and he hasnot suffered from any deficiency in any respect. This O.P. and complainant are having relation of creditor and debtor, which is outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act. O.P.No.1 has cited a judgment of the Honble National CDR Commission reported in 2006(iii) CPJ-247(NC), but has not filed the full text for our perusal.
9. According to the O.P.No.1, it is neither the insurance agent nor insurance broker. The private ofcontract is strictly between the O.P.No.2 and the complainant and O.P.No.2 has no role to play in processing the insurance claim , but only to facilitate the processing for which it did not charge any service fee.
10. The O.P.No.1 claims that the insurer i.e. the O.P.No.2 is solely responsible for settlement of theclaim and related service. O.P.No.1 merely facilitate by collecting the documents submitted by the complainant and forwarding the same to the insurance for issuance of policy and settlement of the claim. Processing of claim strictly depends on the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and O.P.No.1 can do little if there is any violation of the condition by the complainant.
11. O.P.No.1 specifically admits in para-2(o) of its written statement  that it is not answerable forany communication or dealings between the complainant and O.P.No.2. It further claims that there is no defect or deficiency or unfair trade practice in its dealing with the complainant. According to O.P.No.1, complainant is not a bonfire one, to the contrary, this case is malicious, false, frivolous and harassing, and so no equitable relief can be granted to the complainant.                                                                                                                                                               
12. Further O.P.No.1 avers in para-10 of the written version that it has no objection if the learnedForum passes any award or order against the O.P.No.2. It further avers in the same para that complainant has valid insurance policy/certificate at the time of accident and as per rule of I.R.D.A., the O.P.No.2 cannot reject the claim on such flimsy ground.  On the basis of the above submissions, O.P.No.1 asserts that the present complaint petition deserves to be dismissed with costs to the O.P.

                O.P.No.1 has not filed any documents in order to substantiate its case.

         15. Heard the parties and perused the complaint petition, written versions filed by the opposite parties and documents filed by the complainant and placed on record.

                FINDINGS:

                O.P.No.1 has taken the stand which is not direct but tangent to the claim of the complainant. It has not directly answered any question. The version of O.P.No.2 reveals that there was no insurance for the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OR-15-L-3846 for the relevant period. Hence the onus of proving that there was valid insurance of the vehicle is on O.P. No. 1. The categorical denial by the O.P.No.2 has not been controverted by the O.P.No.1 by placing any document to show that it has paid the premium for the alleged vehicle for the relevant period to O.P.No.2 and was issued with receipt of premium payment.  The O.P.No.1 has supplied the complainant with a certificate of insurance for the relevant period stating to have been issued by O.P./No.2. But after denial of O.P.No.2 regarding issuance of any insurance certificate for the alleged vehicle for the relevant period, O.P.No.1 is silent as to how a valid insurance certificate was supplied to the complainant, which was later on categorically denied by the Insurance Company (O.P.No.2) that it has not issued any insurance certificate in favour of the complainant in respect of the alleged vehicle.O.P.No.1 is totally silent on these two vital aspects.

                16. O.P.No.1 is also silent as to on what basis its Claims Officer issued a letter dated.10.01.2011 to the complainant which states regarding repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company on the ground of anomaly regarding private vehicle and commercial package vehicle. On this point also is silent and in the written version no clarification has been given on the above three points, which shows that O.P.No.1 has not taken out any insurance policy for the vehicle of the complainant for the relevant period. It seems it has fabricated documents and issued letter dated.10.01.2011 to the complainant. Nothing is coming forward from the side of O.P. No. 1 to dissuade us from entertaining this thought. On the above basis, we strongly believe that O.P.No.1 has supplied fabricated documents to the complainant intimating the complainant that his claim was repudiated by the O.P.No.2. The complainant is ignorant regarding these manipulation made by O.P. No. 1 who is trying hard to cover up its wrong doing.

                17. O.P.No.1 has also not contested the stand taken by O.P.No.2 that no insurance certificate was issued in favour of the complainant for the alleged vehicle for the relevant period by filing documents/evidence to satisfy this Forum.

                18. O.P.No.2 has denied the allegation against it in to and O.P.No.1 has failed to establish the allegation against O.P.No.2. On such circumstances, we find no fault on the part of O.P.No.2, and accordingly, O.P.No.2 is exempted from the proceeding.                                                                                                                                                      

                19. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances discussed above, we hold that O.P.No.1 has committed gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice which caused loss and sufferings to the complainant. Accordingly, we allow the case of the complainant against O.P.No.1 on contest and direct the O.P.No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty-five thousand) towards compensation along with pendent lite  interest  18(Eighteen) per cent  (penal) per annum from the date  of claim filed before the O.Ps till the date of payment. As complainant has not prayed for awarding any costs, no order is passed as to payment of costs.