ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint for directing the opp.party to pay an amount of Rs.14,990/-and Rs.8,890/- compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: Complainant is the registered owner and driver of the Bajaj Pick-up Auto bearing Reg.No.KL-2V/1254. The 1st opp.party is the Insurance Department Officer of the Bajaj Finance Ltd., Pune. The 2nd opp.party is the manager of Bajaj Finance Ltd., Sarathy Motors, Kollam. 3rd opp.party is the New India Assurance Co., Kollam Branch office land the IVth opp.party is the New India Assurance Co., Pune. The complainant purchased Bajaj Pick up Auto from the sarathy Bajaj Auto Ltd., Kollam At the time of purchasing the vehicle was insured in the name of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. bearing Policy No.31/152600/166874 the valid policy dated 28.4.2006 to 27.4.2007. On 29the September 2006 at about 1.30 p.m. Bajaj Pick up van met with an accident. On 13th October 2006 the complainant given an application to the 3rd opp.party for the purpose of arranging spot survey. The 3rd opp.party has appointed a Spot Surveyor for inspecting the vehicle land ascertaining the destroyed spare parts, labour charge report and summary of Assessment. After the inspection, the spot surveyor gave a summary of assessment for Rs.10,394.14 ps. After completing the work of Bajaj Auto Ltd the said workshop received an amount of Rs.14,990/- from the complainant After releasing the vehicle from the above said workshop the complainant took the vehicle to another workshop for patch work painting and body leveling. From 15.11.2006 to 25.11.2006 the above said vehicle was in Sunil Industries workshop at Mayyanadu for body leveling painting and patch work. After completing the work the complainant submit the entire bill before the 3rd opp.party. But the opp.parties refused to pay the bill amount. The complainant demanded many times to pay the spot summary assessment bill amount. But the opp.parties not ready to pay any amount to the complainant. At the time of purchasing the vehicle the opp.parties are agreed to pay any claim due to accident, the entire amount will be payable by the 3rd opp.party But the opp.party did not pay the bill amount. The act of the opp.party amount to the unfair trade practice.. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed version contending as follows: Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. having its registered office at Mumbai, Pune is public Ltd company incorporated under companies Act, 1956, It is also registered as a Non-banking Finance Co. with Reserve Bank of India. The company is primarily engaged in the business of providing consumer finance through various schemes and financed products includes two wheelers, Consumer durable of well known brands manufactured by reputed entities like L.G Samsung, Godrej etc Computers like HCL in addition to Personal Loan to needy and credit worthy persons. The company is managed by professionals as per the Corporate Governance Rules as applicable. The opp.party states that the contents of the complainant which are specifically admitted by the opp.party are only true and rest all are denied. The complainant has entered into Loan Agreement No.444/24956 on 28.4.2005 and availed finance of Rs.99,000/- for the purchase of vehicle Bajaj Goods Carrier. The monthly instalment to be paid per month is Rs.3,629/- The contract period is of 36 months, rate of interest is 10.65% The opp.party states that the insurance claim was settled by the insurance company on 14.12.2006 for Rs.6,660/- The opp.party states the claim amount was not refunded to the complainant as instalment No.19 for Rs.3,629/- plus Penal interest of Rs.649/- towards instalment No.8 was due from the complainant. The opp.party through its branch had informed to the complainant about the outstanding amount however, complainant failed to pay legitimate dues. Meanwhile cheque NO.518920 issued by the complainant against instalment No.20 was dishonored for the reason ‘Not Drawn on us” and hence refund of insurance claim amount was on hold. Thereafter the complainant on 13.2.2007 paid instalment dues against instalment No.19 however penal interest of Rs.1,297/- was due from complainant . The opp.party as per terms of agreement, refunded insurance claim amount after adjusting Penal interst of Rs.1,297/- Insurance claim amount Rs.6,550/- less penal interest Rs.1,297/- There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party 2. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties. Points 1 and 2 Complainant filed this complaint for getting amount of Rs.14990/- and Rs.98,890/- as compensation from the opp.parties. Opp.parties 1 and 2 filed vakalath and version. Opp.parties 3 and 4 through served with notices chose not to filed their version disputing or denying the averments made in the complaint. Opp.parties 1 and 2 produced 3 documents but opp.parties 3 and 4 did not turn up to adduce any oral or documentary evidence. During cross examination PW.1 deposed that there is no deficiency in service from the side of the opp.parties 1 and 2 and no relief is seeking from opp.parties 1 and 2. We have carefully perused the complaint, affidavit, version of opp.parties 1 and 2 and documents. As no evidence is adduced from the side of opp.parties 3 and 4, we are constrained to reply upon the evidence of complainant and opp.parties 1 and 2. From the evidence and documents before us we are of the view that opp.parties 3 and 4 committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties 3 and 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.14,990/- and 8,890/- to the complainant. Opp.parties 3 and 4 are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Sisupalan List of documents for the complainant P1. –Estimate P2. – Estimate giving lby surveyor P3. – Copy of Bill P4. – Copy of complaint P5. - Policy | 
