The case of complainant in brief is that the  complainant purchased a Chevrolet AVEO Sedan petrol car bearing Engine No.F14D3448638K, Chassis No.MA6TF694M6HJO8538, manufactured by General Motors from Radiant Motor Pvt Ltd having office and show room at Sarusajai, Beltola, NH-37, Guwahati at the cost of Rs.5,71,742/- on 05.01.07 with the finance from Allahabad Bank, Duliajan Branch. After purchasing the vehicle OP No.4 insisted the complainant to have his vehicle insured with the HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd i.e. OP No-2. Since, the insurance before plying the vehicle is compulsory the complainant by making payment of Rs.21,342/- being premium against total sum assured of Rs.5,66,905/- insured the vehicle with OP No-2. The authorised persons present in the office of OP NO-4 filled up the relevant forms with specifically mentioning the effective time  and date of insurance from 05-01-07 to midnight of 04.01.08 under their seal and signature. Thereafter, the OPs delivered a Cover Note No.V.C00923813 to the complainant at the time of purchasing the vehicle. But the OPs did not give the original policy documents against the aforesaid insurance till today. The complainant was surprised when he receive the letter dated 18.01.08 from OP No.2 of reminding the complainant for renewal of his motor vehicle insurance which, depict that the expiry date of his insurance was on 17.03.08. On enquiry the complainant found that  his vehicle was insured from 18.03.07 to 17.03.08 which clearly implied that the complainant plied and  drove his vehicle during the period from 05.01.07 to 18.03.07 without insurance coverage. Whereas, the OP No-2 already received Rs.21,342/- vide dealer’s cheque No.196731 dated 05.01.07 drawn in favour of OP No-2. Thereby, the OPs failed to perform their abundant duty in pursuance of trusted relation with consumer to their service and thereby committed deficiency in service for which the complainant prays to refund the excess amount already  realised from the complainant and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the deficiency in service along with cost of litigation.

            After registering the case notices were issued to all the OPs which were duly received  by them but OP No.3 and 4 remained absent and not represented the case. OP No.1 and 2 submitted their written statement stating inter-alia that  the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. OP No.1 and 2 stated that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the case for which the case is not maintainable in law; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint petition. The OP denies that they have not sent the original policy to the complainant. The OP further submitted that  in order to claim compensation the complainant has to establish that there is negligence  as well as deficiency in service on the part of OP No-1 and 2. The OP further submitted that this case is lack of jurisdiction as OP No. l and 2  have no office within the jurisdiction of Dibrugarh. The complainant made Dibrugarh Branch Office of HDFC General Insurance Co. Ltd as OP No-3 but no such branch office is in existence at Dibrugarh. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for absence of jurisdiction. As soon as the OP received the premium amount they have issued the policy, as such, the OP No.1 and 2 are not liable to  pay any compensation. There is no imperfection, shortcoming, inadequacy in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed against the OP No. 1 and 2.

            In this case the complainant gave his evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited only 2 (two) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, the OP though submitted written statement but not adduced any evidence. At the time of argument the OP No.1 and 2 submitted their written argument to rebut the case of the complainant.

                           DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

        Upon going through the evidence of the complainant and the document it is  found that complainant purchased a vehicle Chevrolet Aveo Sedan petrol car from OP No.4 at the cost of Rs.5,71,742/- on 05.01.07. Thereafter, on the pressure of OP No.4, vehicle was insured with HDFC General Insurance Company Limited, i.e. OP No-2 by paying premium of Rs.21342/- on total sum assured Rs.566905/- through its authorised agent who issued a cover note bearing No.VC00923813 in favour of the complainant mentioning clearly the date of commencement of the insurance from 05.01.07 to 04.01.08. Ext-1 is the said cover note. The complainant was plying his vehicle on the basis of above cover note but the OP till today have not sent the original policy document to the complainant. The complainant was surprised after receipt of a letter, i.e. Motor Insurance Renewal Instruction Form dated 18.01.08 from OP No-2, reminding him for renewal of motor vehicle which shows the expiry of insurance as on 17.03.08, which clearly appears that his vehicle was without insurance cover for period of two months and thirteen days, i.e. from 05.01.07 to 17.03.07. The OP No.2 recovered Rs.21,342/- for the said policy by dealer’s cheque No.196731/- dated 05.01.07 for Rs.21,342/-. Ext-2 is the motor insurance renewal instruction form. The OPs failed to perform their abundant duty in pursuance of trusted relation with the customer and thereby committed deficiency in service.

       In this case OPs have not adduced their evidence.

       The OPs in their written argument  submitted that complaint petition is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and 2 for want of jurisdiction because OP No.1 and 2 have no office within the jurisdiction of this Forum as such, complaint petition is liable to be dismissed against the HDFC General Insurance Company Ltd.

       Further, it is argued that there is no ingredients of fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in service towards the complainant as alleged by the complainant. The OP denies that they have not sent original policy to the complainant. Complainant has failed to prove that he has not received the original copy of the policy. Complainant has to establish that there is negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2. Besides, complainant has failed to establish that he had suffered loss because nothing had happened during the period from 05.01.07 to 18.03.07 for plying the vehicle in question without insurance  coverage. Hence, the question of compensation does not arise. As soon as the OP received the premium amount they have issued the policy. The complainant has failed to establish that the OP No.1 and 2 have committed any fraud and cheating.

        So far territorial jurisdiction is concern, the  complainant has made OP No.3 as Dibrugarh Branch Office HDFC General   Insurance Company Limited but OP No.1 and 2 denies that they have any branch at Dibrugarh. In this case OP  submitted only written statement  but did not adduced any evidence to establish  their case. Whereas, complainant  by adducing evidence and establish the prima facie material of existence of the Branch Office of OP No.1 and 2 at Dibrugarh. As such, U/s 11 (2) of the Consumer  Protection Act would indicate that it is the residence  of the OP where it carries  its business is the relevant consideration for determining the territorial jurisdiction. Hence, in our opinion, there is jurisdiction in this Forum of the case in hand.

     Considering the other submissions of learned counsel for OP and after perusing the evidence of the complainant it is found that original copy of the policy was neither been submitted by the complainant  nor by the OPs before the Forum. According to the evidence of the complainant the OP delivered a cover note to the complainant at the time of purchasing  the vehicle through the agent of OP No.1 and 2 but subsequently, the OPs did not give  the original policy documents against the insurance of the vehicle. The OPs have failed to prove the allegation brought by the complainant that they have sent the policy to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs have submitted only written statement  denying the allegation  of the complainant and not adduced any evidence to establish their denial. It is settled principle of law that mere written statement is not sufficient to prove the case of the OP. They must  support their written statement by giving evidence.

       In the instant case OP failed to produce any document that original policy was sent to the complainant. In this case complainant stated that the original policy was not sent by the OP and OP took the plea that they have  sent the policy. As such, it was  abundant duty to prove it, which they failed.

       Since there is a cover note which is a preliminary contract between the parties and if there is any mistake the same ought to have been corrected immediately. The burden to prove the mistake is on the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company has failed to prove the same. Had the original policy been submitted to the complainant the mistake would have been come to light but as the OP failed to submit the original policy to the complainant same could not be corrected. The complainant stated that they have never received the policy otherwise they could have drawn the attention of the Insurance Committee that the policy contain some mistake. Since the OP failed to produce the original policy either to the complainant or to the Forum it is established here that the complainant has not received the copy of the policy. The argument made by the OP are not only illogical but made for the sake of making.

     In view of the above foregoing discussion, decision and after considering the fact and evidence this Forum comes to an unassailable conclusion that the OP No.1 and 2 have failed to rebut the evidence of the complainant as regard to plying of the vehicle without valid insurance from 05.01.07 to 17.03.07. As such, we may come to the conclusion that there is material of deficiency in service of the OP No.1 and 2 by not supplying the original policy of the Insurance Certificate to the complainant and by not insuring the vehicle from 05.01.07 to 18.03.07 for which the complainant had to ply the vehicle during the above period without having Insurance policy. Hence, OP No.1 and 2 is directed to repay the insurance amount of Rs.21,342/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this case and cost of Rs.1000/-. All the above amount shall be paid within two months from the date of this judgment.

        Further, no compensation for mental harassment and agony has been awarded because, there is no material on the record that the complainant suffered mental harassment and agony.

        Furnish copy of this judgment to OPs for compliance.