1. The brief fact of case of the complainant is that for his self employment, he purchased one TATA 709 from the O.P. No.1 and registered the same vide Regd.No. OD-30-C-2745 and insured the same with O.P. No.3 vide proposal no. 3379230386375 valid from 04.12.2019 to 03.12.2020.  The allegations of complainant is that on 27.05.2020 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and he lodged complaint with the Boipariguda P.S. vide G.D. No. 001 & 007 dated 28.05.2007 and also reported the matter with the O.P. No. 2 and as per advise he shifted his vehicle to the garage of O.P. No.1 where the repair bill was raised for Rs. 1,11,039/- and submitted all the bills to the O.P. No.2. It is also alleged that the O.P. No.2 has arbitrarily released an amount of Rs. 34,737/- in favour of the O.P. No.1 and the same was not in the knowledge of the complainant and to get back his vehicle he paid the rest amount to the O.P. No.1 and released the vehicle.  Further allegations of complainant is that though the vehicle was financed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, the R.C. Book of the alleged vehicle shows the hypothecation as Tata Motors Finance, which is only due to the wrong entry either by O.P. No.3 or the O.P. No.1, though he has complaint several times to the O.P. No.1 & 3 to clarify the same, but did not get any result.  Thus showing deficiency in service on the part of the all O.Ps, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. No.2 settle the insurance claim as per bill amount, the O.P. No.1 & 2 to pay Rs. 50,000/- for not informing him towards release of insurance amount, the O.P. No.1 & 3 to pay Rs. 50,000/- for wrong entry of the name of finance in the R.C. Book and the O.Ps to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of litigation to him.

2. The O.P. No.1 though appreard in the case, but did not choose to file their counter inspite of repeated adjournemnts given to them, nor participated in the hearing also, as such we lost every opportunities to hear from them and the allegations made against them, remains unchallenged unrebuttal.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from the Fora, but did not choose to appear in this case inspite of several adjournments were given to them, as such we lost every opportunity to hear from them, as such the allegations made against them remain unchallenged unrebuttal.

4. The O.P. No.3 appeared in this case and filed their counter version admitting the issue of R.C. Book against the alleged vehicle, but denied the allegations of complainant contending that, being the registering authority, they have issued R.C. Book in dispute after receive the relevant documents from the concerned dealer as the per norms of Govt., and in the instant case also they have issued the R.C. Book against the alleged vehicle after receipt all the relevant documents from the dealer i.e. O.P. No. 1 after due procedure followed, as such showing their no deficiency in service, they prayed to dismiss the case.

5. Except complainant no parties to the present dispute have filed any documents in their support.  At the time of hearing, only complainant and the A/R for O.P. No. 3 are present, as such we heard from them only.  Perused the record and materials available therein. 

6. It is documentary fact that the complainant purchased the alleged vehicle from the O.P. No.1 and got insured the same with the O.P. No.2 vide proposal no. 3379230386375 valid from 04.12.2019 to 03.12.2020 and also got registered with the O.P. No.3 vide Regd. No. OD-30-C-2745.  The allegations of complainant is that on 27.05.2020 the alleged vehicle met with an accident and he lodged complaint with the Boipariguda P.S. vide G.D. No. 001 & 007 dated 28.05.2007.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  And reported the matter with the O.P. No. 2 and as per their advise he shifted his vehicle to the garage of O.P. No.1 where the repair bill was raised for Rs. 1,11,039/- and submitted all the repair bills to the O.P. No.2.  Complainant also filed document to that effect. The allegation of complainant is that the O.P. No.2 has arbitrarily released an amount of Rs. 34,737/- instead of the total repair bill amount of Rs. 1,11,039/- in favour of the O.P. No.1.Complainant also filed document to that effect. It is also alleged that the release of aforesaid amount was not in his knowledge and to get back his vehicle he paid the rest amount to the O.P. No.1 and released the vehicle.Complainant also filed document to that effect.The said allegation is also never been challenged by the O.P. No. 1 & 2 though the said dispute is well in their knowledge, hence we think the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have nothing to speak in this regard. During hearing, complainant submitted that had the O.P. No. 1 & 2 brought the fact of release of less amount, he would have made objection to that effect, but the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have nor brought the same into the knowledge of complainant.Since no contradictions brought out by the O.P. No. 1 & 2, the allegations made against them remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of the Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another, wherein it is held that that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”  Further, it is noticed that the O.P. No. 2 though received the notice from the Fora and did not choose to appear in this case, it is not made clear that how they have assessed the insurance claim against the accidental vehicle, as such we have no option to disbelieve the versions of the complainant.  Hence we feel, without any cogent evidence from the O.P. No.3, release of less claim amount is not justified and complainant is entitled for the rest repaired amount.   

7. Further allegations of complainant is that though the vehicle was financed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, the R.C. Book of the alleged vehicle shows the hypothecation as Tata Motors Finance, which is only due to the wrong entry either by O.P. No. 3 or supply of wrong documents by the O.P. No.1.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  In this regard, the O.P. No. 3 filed their counter version stating that they have issued the R.C. Book against the alleged vehicle as per the relevant documents supplied by the concerned dealer i.e. O.P. No. 1, hence they have no deficiency in service on their part.Though the O.P. No.1 appeared in this case but did not choose to file their counter nor brought out any contradiction to the version of the O.P. No. 3, hence we feel, the O.P. No. 3 has entered the name of financier in the R.C. Book being issued against the alleged vehicle on the basis of documents and information received from the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. N0.1 might have supplied the wrong information to the O.P. No. 3, which results the wrong entry in the R.C. Book, hence we do not find any deficiency in service of the O.P. No. 3.

8. As per discussions made in the foregoing paras, we feel, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the improper service by the O.P. 1 & 2, for which he seeks redress before the Forum by incurring some expenses, hence in our view, complainant is entitled for the rest payment out of the entire repaired amount and also compensation and costs from the O.P. No. 1 & 2.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                      ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 2 is herewith directed to refund the balance amount of insurance claim i.e. Rs. 76,302/- (Rs. 1,11,039/- - Rs. 34,737/-) with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.07.2020 the date on which the part payment of Rs. 34,737/- was released, within 45 days from the of receipt of this order, failing which the balance amount of Rs. 76,302/- shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from 16.07.2020 to till payment.  Further the O.P. No.1 is directed to supply the proper and correct documents to the concerned R.T.O. for rectification of the name of the financier in the R.C.Book and the O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to extend their cooperation to change the name of financier whenever they receive the documents from the O.P. No. 1 with immediate effect.  Further the O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and improper supply of M.V. documents to the concerned R.T.O., Malkangiri and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of litigation within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

        Since no deficiency in service found out against the O.P. No.3, no order against them.

        Pronounced the order in the open Court on this the 4^th day of May, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.