1. The fact of the case of complainant is that exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment he purchased one 3 eheeler Bajaj Mega Max Auto (B. yellow) bearing chassis no.MD2A29AZ7DWD15667, Engine no. BBZWDD14547 from the O,P.No.1 on 11.07.2013 under hire purchase finance scheme from O.P. No.2 in 36 monthly equal installment @ Rs. 5940/- per month and paid Rs. 86,000/- to O.P. No.1 towards down payment. Further the allegation of the Complainant is that after using the said vehicle properly and gave trouble and as per the advise of  the O.P.No.1 he took the vehicle to their garage for its repair, but one month after its repair , the same defects persists and became defunct, for which, he took the vehicle to their garage, which yielded no result and became idle, thus alleging unfair tractice, the Complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to replace the defect towards compensation and costs to him.
    
2. On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 appeared in this case, but did not prefer to filed their written version nor participated in the hearing inspite of several opportunities given to them keeping in view of natural justice. As such we lost opportunities to hear from them.
    
3. The O.P. No. 2 appeared in this case and filed their written versions admitting the sanction of finance against the alleged vehicle in dispute, but specifically denied that the present disputes filed by the complainant against them is not coming under the ambit of the Act as the complainant has borrowed finance for the alleged vehicle and there is only relationship of borrower and lender exist between them. Further, they contended that since there is an agreement entered into between the complainant and them, as such the subject matter of dispute is well covered under the purview of an Arbitrator to decide under the terms of the contract between the parties subject matter the complainant is a not consumer under them and along with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.    
    
4. The O.P. No.3 is appeared and filed their written version and denied the allegations of complainant stating that the alleged vehicle had not insured by them and the insurance police submitted by the complainant does not prove the owner of the complainant over the alleged vehicle in dispute, as such, denying their liability, they to dismiss the case against them.
    
5. The Op.No.4 though notice was served on them, did not prefer to appear in the present proceeding nor they have filed any counter or written version nor participated in the hearing, inspite of repeated adjournment and opportunities were given to them keeping in view of natural justice, as such we lst opportunities to hear from them.
    
6. In the instant case, Complainant filed certain documents in support of his allegations, whereas, the O.P.No.2 filed certain documents in support of their contentions along with verdicts of higher Courts. Heard from the parties present at length though their authorized representative and perused the materials available on record.
    
7. In the case in hand, it is not disputed one that the complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle from the Op.No.1 which is manufactured by the O.P. No.4 and it is also not disputed one that the alleged vehicle was financed by the O.P.No.2 on heir purchase agreement made between the complainant and  O.P.No.2. Further the contentions of Op.No.2 regarding the status of complainant as consumer is though disputed, but on perusal of records, it is ascertained that there is no specific allegations made by the complainant against the O.P. No.2, rather the complainant intend to put pressure on them by indulging them in the proceeding.
    
8. Further we verified, the documents filed by the complainant to ascertain about the insurance coverage against the alleged vehicle, as the same  was disputed by the O.P.No.3 (insurance company) and found that the complainant has filed one insurance certificate which is issued against one Hera passion pro motorcycle but not against the alleged vehicle (Auto) and the said insurance certificate is issued in favour of one Dhananjaya Mondal of M.V. 105, Po.Gompakonda, Dist. Malkangiri, but not in name of the complainant and the same is no way related with the present dispute. Inspite of repeated opportunities, the complainant could not produce the insurance certificate if any issued against the alleged vehicle showing him as insured, as such there is no hesitation to disbelieve the version of the O.P.No.3 and therefore, it can be concluded that without any sufficient and cogent evidence by the complainant, the insurance coverage against the vehicle in dispute cannot be held sufficient.
    
9. Now coming to the point of complainant against the O.P.No.1&4 regarding not providing of better service to him, while his vehicle is not working properly, for which he along with his entire  family has been suffered. Though the O.Ps.No.4 have received the notice from the Fora, they did not choose to appear nor they filed their written version nor participated in the nearing also, inspite of repeated opportunities were given to them, which seems that the O.Ps in dispute have nothing to say in their defense. As such the allegations of complainant remained unchallenged on their part and have not rebutted at all. In the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs  Babu Lal and Another, Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”
    
10.  Further considering the allegations of the complainant regarding his suffering, we feel definitely the complainant who along with his family members depends upon the earing from the alleged vehicle, must have suffered mentally,  physically and financially which cannot be counted in any terms, and the attitude of the O.P.No.1&4 towards neglecting the complainant must have put him in such drastic condition which also cannot be compensated in any kind, which compelled the complainant to seek redress before this For a, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Had the O.P. No.1&4 take necessary steps to provide better service to the complainant by repairing the alleged vehicle properly, then the complainant could have able to maintain his family and also make himself out from the financial crisis, but such monopoly attitude of he O.P.No.1&4 deprived the complainant to live with sound life, and  in our view non providing better service to their genuine customer, the O.P.No.1&4 have proved deficiency in service on their part. From the above discussions, we feel that there is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1&4 for which they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this order.

ORDER

                That the  complaint petition is allowed in part. The  O.P. No.1 & 4 are jointly and severally, herewith directed to replace the alleged vehicle with new defect free vehicle of same costs along with proper insurance coverage and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing with the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of this order.

Since there is no specific claim against the O.P. No. 2 & 3 no order against them. Parties to bear their own costs.

        Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of February, 2018.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.