1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he insured his vehicle Toyata ETIOS bearing Regd. No. OD-30-B-2009 with the Opp. Party No. 1 & 2 vide policy no. 345492/31/2017/1617 valid from 28.02.2017 to 27.02.2018.  It is submitted that on 08.06.2017 the said vehicle met with an accident near Sukuma By-Pass canal road and he reported the matter with the local police vide their S.D. No. 152 dated 09.06.2017 and on next day he intimated the same to the O.P. No. 1 & 2 and as per their advise, he shifted his accidental vehicle to the garage of O.P. No. 3, where the repaired invoice was raised for Rs. 2,32,326/- and after depositing the same, the vehicle was released on 17.09.2017 and he incurred Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-towards shifting the vehicle from the accidental spot to the garage of O.P. No.3.  It is alleged that the O.P. No.1 & 2 has released only Rs. 1,13,300/- against the total expenditure and despite of repeated approaches to get the balance expenditure, no response was received from the O.P. No.1 & 2, thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. No. 1 & 2, he filed this case claiming the balance expenditure amount of Rs. 1,13,300/- alongwith Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.

2. After receipt the notice from this Commission, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared in this case and filed their written version admitting the issuance of the insurance policy against the alleged vehicle but denied contending that the allegations of complainant are not true and complainant is not entitled any further reliefs as the same are unjustified, unreasonable and untenable under law, and showing their no liabilities they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

3. O.P. No.3 though received the notice, but did not choose to appear throughout the proceeding, neither filed their counter version nor participated in the hearing also.
    
4. Complainant filed certain documents in support of his submissions, whereas the O.Ps did not choose to file any documents.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs at length and perused the materials available in the record.

5. Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1. Copy of R.C. Book
2. Copy of insurance policy vide no. 345492/31/2017/1617.
3. Copy of D.L. issued in favour of Kanhu Charan Dalai.
4. Copy of S.D. entry vide no. 152 dated 09.06.2017
5. Copy of motor insurance claim form duly filled up
6. Copy of repaired bills issued by O.P. No.3

6. In the instant case, issuance of insurance policy vide no. 345492/31/2017/1617 valid from 28.02.2017 to 27.02.2018 against the alleged vehicle is an admitted fact and it is also an admitted fact that during the valid period of policy, the alleged vehicle met with an accident on 08.06.2017, for which he lodged a report before the concerned P.S. and accordingly, S.D. No. 152 dated 09.06.2017 was registered and also intimated the same to the O.P. No. 1 & 2 with relevant documents.  The allegations of complainant is that though the repaired bill for Rs. 2,32,326/- was raised by the O.P. No.3, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 released only Rs. 1,13,300/- against the total expenditure amount.  Whereas the O.P. No. 1 & 2 filed their counter version with simple denial pleas but did not choose to bring out any contradiction to the allegations of complainant.  As such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.  In this connection, we have fortified with the Judgement of 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.”   
    
7. Further complainant has submitted that the O.P. No.1 & 2 has released an amount of Rs. 1,13,300/- against the total repaired amount of Rs. 2,32,326/- which is not justified and he is entitled for the entire repaired amount.  From the record, it is ascertained that the O.P. No. 1 & 2 has released the aforesaid amount but has not stated about the details of such amount and no survey report or any evidence like calculation sheet brought out by the O.P. 1 & 2 to justify their payment made to the complainant.  And it is not clear that how the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have assessed such amount and released in favour of complainant and without any cogent evidence, the payment made to the complainant is not justified.    Hence we feel, the complainant is entitled for the entire repaired amount deducting the amount released.

8. Further complainant submitted that he has incurred an expense of Rs. 5,000/- towards lifting the accidental vehicle from canal to road and Rs. 15,000/- towards shifting the vehicle to the garage of O.P. No. 3.  Though the said version is not challenged by the O.Ps, but complainant has not filed any evidence to that effect. As such we are not inclined to accept the said version of complainant.   
      
9. As per the discussions made in the foregoing paras, in our view, the complainant is entitled to receive the balance repaired amount of Rs. 1,19,026/-  (Rs. 2,32,326/- - Rs. 1,13,300/-) from the O.Ps.  Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried his level best to get the genuine claims from the O.Ps, but failed, for which he was compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such he is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering his suffering, we feel Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- towards costs will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                          ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The Opp. Party No. 1 & 2, being the insurer of the alleged vehicle, is herewith directed to refund the balance repaired amount of Rs. 1,19,026/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of intimation received by them i.e. 09.06.2017 till payment.  Further the O.P. No. 1 & 2 is also herewith directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and  financial loss and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

Since no specific allegations made against the O.P. No.3, no order against them.

  Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28^th day of May, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.