MRS S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER:-This complaint is filed by Kishore Chandra Behera against Chairman, Tata Motors Finance Ltd.(O.P.No.1) and Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Sambalpur(O.P.No.2) alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant purchased a Tata Pick up vehicle for which he 
financed an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- out of the invoice price of Rs.3,63,927/- from O.P.No.1 through its branch office at Sambalpur, O.P.No.2.  The total contract value is Rs.4,36,500/- including insurance for 3 years i.e. Rs.45,000/-(for policy year 2,3,4), finance i.e. interest/finance charge Rs.1,01,500/-. 46 installments fixed for repayment (45 EMI @ 9,500/- and 46th @ 9,000/- from dt.30.08.2012 to dt.02.06.2016)                                             
In spite of adequate credit balance available there in the account of the complainant in order 
to facilitate auto debit mandate for clearance of installments, the financer demanded arbitrarily  Rs.13,210/- vide its Advocate’s letter dated,09,10,2013 . This demand of extra money is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
4. That as per the arrangement of financer, the complainant paid for the insurance of 1st year 
with premium of Rs.14,545/- to the O.P. The O.P. obtained the insurance policy through its another group company i.e. Tata  Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Service Ltd., as broker of the insurance ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., for the 1st year covering from dt.03.09,2012 to dt.02.09.2013. The O.P. has to insure the vehicle for next 3 years. Unfortunately, the O.P. neither supplied any information nor any documents relating to2nd year insurance of the vehicle till December, 2013, in absence of which the complainant was unable to ply the vehicle. It caused considerable mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.
    5. Then the complainant wrote letters to the O.P., demanding insurance for the vehicle and to supply certificate of insurance. After 3 months, the O.P. despatched the insurance certificate, which was received by the complainant on dt.02.12.2013. Apart from late information, there is even another deficiency in service conducted by O.P. since 5 days extra insurance cover was given i.e. dt.29.08.2013 instead of dt.03.09,.2013. Intentionally the financer did not attach a forwarding letter while dispatching insurance document on dt.30.11.2013. Non-plying of vehicle due to lack of insurance information from the financer caused considerable financial loss to the complainant apart from mental agony and harassment for which the O.P. is liable to compensate.
    6. Prayer of the complainant to this Forum is to give direction to the O.Ps to pay:
(1)  Rs.58,500/- to make good the loos for financial loss since the vehicle could not  be plied for 39 days (@ Rs.1,500/- per day) (2)  Rs. 1 lakh compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service (3) Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the proceeding.
    7. After service of notice, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., filed written version on behalf of both the O.Ps. It is submitted by the O.P. that, the vehicle in question having registration No.OD-0166 was funded by  the O.P. to the complainant and the O.P. being  the financer is not liable to pay any compensation, hence on this ground alone the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P.
    8. Second submission is that as the O.P.  is financer of the vehicle of which the complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question nor it was in the possession and control thereof and the vehicle was neither plying under O.P’s instructions nor the driver was its employee to work under the supervision and control of the O.P., so, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
    9. Thirdly, it is the submission of the O.P. that the complainant  entered into a loan-cum- hypothecation –cum-guarantee agreement bearing No.5001026525 dated.30.08.2012 as a borrower for purchasing a Tata Magic 8 seater for Rs.3,63,927/- in which initial amount of Rs.73,927/- was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was financed by the O.P. and the complainant   agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,01,500/- towards the finance charges. Hence the complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.4,36,500/- towards the contract value. The said contract value amount has to be repaid in 46 equal monthly installments on 2nd day of every month.

                                            
    10. Further  it is stated by the O.P. that the complaint is not maintain able as the loan agreement contains the clause for ?Arbitration where all the disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising out of the said agreement against the O.P. shall be referred to the sole arbitrator.
    11. Regarding the insurance of the vehicle, it is the submission of the O.P. that the financer is not liable for the 1st year of insurance and that complainant also requested for insurance of his vehicle and accordingly, an insurance provision has also approved for 2nd, 3rd and 4th year provision.
    12. Lastly, it is the submission of the O.P. that the O.P. has not committed any unfair trade practice and therefore, there is no reason for the complainant to undergo any physical, financial and mental loss and agony attributable  to the O.P. Extending financial help to a person in need cannot be construed as unfair trade practice. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him and this case is liable to be dismissed on merit against the O.P. with exemplary cost, for filing such a frivolous and vexatious complaint.
    13. Documents filed by the complainant are Xerox copies of: 
(1) Contract details issued by O.Ps. (2) Letter dated.14.09.2012 issued by financer related to repayment arrangement (3)  Repayment schedule fixed by the financer (4)  Entry details of pass book of the complainant  (5) Advocate’s letter dated.09.10.2013 of O.Ps (6) Protest letter dated.24.10.2013 of the complainant (7) Insurance policy schedule-cum- certificate (8) Letter dated.24.10.2013 of the complainant (9) Letter dated.25.10.2013 of the complainant (10 ) Insurance certificate (11) Letter dated.03.2.2013 of the complainant (12) D.L. and R.C. of the complainant 

    Documents filed by the O.Ps are Xerox copies of:
Arbitral Award copy passed by sole Arbitrator Mr.Nitin Chavan dt.30.04.2014 (2) Loan-cum-
Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement copy of Kishore Chandra Behera dt.26.06.2012.

    14. We heard the learned counsels on behalf of the parties and also gone through the record and documents at length.
    It is not in dispute that the complainant entered into a loan-cum-hypothecation-cum-guarantee agreement bearing No.5001026525 dated.30.08.2012  as borrower  for purchasing a Tata Magic 8 seater for Rs.3,63,927/- in which an initial amount of Rs.73,927/- was paid by the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs.2,90,000/- was financed by the O.P. The total contract value was Rs.4,36.500/- including insurance for 3 years i.e. Rs.45,000/- (for policy year 2,3 &4), interest/finance charges Rs.1,01,500/- . 46 installments fixed for repayment (45 EMI @ Rs.9,500/- , 46th @ Rs.9,000/- from dt.30.08.2012 to dt.02.06.2016).
    15. The first allegation of the complainant is that, the financer demanded arbitrarily Rs.13,210/- vide its Advocate’s letter dated.09.10.2013, despite of adequate credit balance in the account of the complainant in order to facilitate auto debit mandate for clearance of installments. The complainant has filed the entry details of pass book as documentary evidence (Annexure-4). According to the complainant, the aforesaid demand of Rs.13,210/- extra amount by the O.P. is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the contrary, the O.P. has not mentioned anything about the aforesaid allegation in its written version.
                                            
    16. Second allegation of the complainant is that, the O.P. neither supplied any information nor any documents relating to 2nd year of insurance of the vehicle till December, 2013 i.e. for 3 months. In absence of which the complainant was unable to ply the vehicle which leads to financial loss to him.

17. It is the submission of the O.P. that, no direction was given to the complainant by the O.P. with regard to insurance of vehicle le. It is the discretion of the complainant to insure his vehicle from his desired Insurance Company. But it is mentioned in the contract details(Annexure-1) filed by the complainant that, the insurance amount of Rs.45,000/- for the policy year 2,3 & 4 was also included in the contract value of Rs.4,36,000/-. 
18. It is the submission of the O.P. that, this complaint is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for Arbitration, where all the disputes, difference and claims and questions whatsoever arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. O.P. has filed an Arbitration case after filing of this case by the complainant in this Forum. The Arbitration petition was filed by the O.P. in a belated stage. The Arbitrator should have taken into consideration that such a litigation is pending before the Consumer Forum and he should have waited for the outcome of the proceeding. 
    19. The O.P. was specially asked by us to produce any citation relating to this simultaneous proceeding in two Forums having jurisdiction over the matter and in such circumstances what should be the conduct of the Forum in which petition was filed later on. The O.P. failed to produce any citation to clear our doubt. As per Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this Forum has every power to decide a case and exercising the power given to it. Section-10 of C.P.C also empowers this Forum to pass valid order in the proceeding as the proceeding before the arbitration court is later/subsequent proceeding than the one before this Forum and the matter in issue is also directly and substantially the same before both the Forums.
    20. The O.P. has referred to certain decisions of the Apex court, but has not submitted the reporting decisions meant therefor. Since the details of the principles laid down therein are not available before us, it becomes not feasible to go through and ascertain the principle.
21.   In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is our view that, the demand of extra amount of Rs.13,210/- and supply of insurance papers lately are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the O.P. towards the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant has not filed any satisfactory evidence of financial loss suffered by him in absence of insurance papers.                                    
22. In this view of the matter, the case of the complainant is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. The O.P. is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand) for financial loss and Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand) for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand)  towards the cost of the proceeding within one month of the order, failing which O.Ps will pay interest @ 9(Nine) percent  per annum on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization.