1. In nutshell, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Maruti Swift Dzire car from OP.1 vide Invoice No. VSL14000531 dt.28.2.2015 for Rs.6, 61,249/ with the financial assistance of OP No.3 which includes Rs.27, 188/- towards insurance premium and the OP.2 issued insurance policy bearing No. 3004/MI-0263659/00/000 in respect of the vehicle covering the period 28.2.2015 to 27.2.2016.It is submitted that during delivery of the vehicle the OP.1 assured that the TRC is inbuilt with the vehicle for 15 days and the registration will be done on the next working day and hence the complainant brought the vehicle to his house.It is further submitted that on the next day i.e. dt.01.03.2015 while his driver was driving the vehicle to a nearby temple for rituals it met with an accident by dashing to a roadside wall and got fully damaged for which an FIR was lodged vide No.53 dt.01.3.2015 and the driver was arrested and released on bail.On intimation, the OP.2 registered complaint vides No.MOT04569353 and advised to shift the vehicle to the garage of OP.1.It is also further submitted that on 26.5.2015 the OP.2 deputed Mr. Santosh Kumar as surveyor who investigated the matter but during 2^nd week of June, 2015, the OP.2 through telephone told the complainant that the insurance claim will not be settled as the vehicle had neither registered nor had TRC at the time of delivery of the vehicle by OP.1.The complainant submitted that he had already paid Rs.33, 810/- to OP.1 on the date of purchase of vehicle towards registration but without any arrangement, the OP.1 has released the new vehicle and on contact to OP.1, it replied that he has not received any amount towards registration of the vehicle from OP.3. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops 1 & 3 to clarify about the issue and to direct OP.2 to settle the claim at Rs.6, 61,249/- in his favour.It is also prayed to direct the OP.1 or 2 to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation and the faulty OP to pay Rs.1.50 lac towards parking charges demanded by OP.1.

2. The OP No.1 filedcounter admitting that the complainant purchased the alleged car for Rs.6, 61,249/- on 28.2.2015 availing loan from OP.3 and after purchase the complainant had insured the vehicle with OP.2 by paying premium of Rs.27, 188/- for the period 28.2.2015 to 27.2.2016.It is contended that on 28.2.2015 the OP tried to deposit the amount towards registration fee and road tax through online but due to net failure, the amount could not be deposited.Since the next day was Sunday and being holiday, the tax was deposited on 02.3.2015.The OP.1 contended that the financier had paid Rs.8, 39, 249/- against Rs.8, 45,977/- which is short of Rs.6728/- and the allegation of the complainant that he has paid Rs.33, 810/- towards registration amount is not true.It is further contended that due to accident of the vehicle on the very next day of purchase, the complainant should not blame the OP.1 and it is the duty of the complainant to comply with all requirements before plying the vehicle.It is also further contended that the vehicle was insured and hence the OP.2 cannot escape from the liability.Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3. The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that on the date of accident the owner has plied the vehicle on road without registration which violates the conditions of the policy and for such violation of MV Act, the Insurance Co. is not liable to pay any claim.It is contended that the vehicle had no TRC at the time of accident and it was the duty of the complainant and dealer to obtain TRC before delivery of a new vehicle.The OP further contended that liability if any fixed on the answering OP; it should be as per survey report.With these contentions denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4. The OP.3 also filed counter contending that the complaint petition has been filed mainly against Ops 1 & 2.It is contended that the complainant availed loan for purchase of the vehicle and he is supposed to make repayment of loan dues and on failure to repay, the OP is entitled to the remedies as available under the loan agreement.Denying the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the OP.3, the OP contended that under hire purchase transaction, the financier is not rendering any service within the meaning of C. P. Act and hirer is not a consumer.Denying the allegation of the OP.1 that the financer has not given money for road tax and registration, the OP contended that the financer gives finance for purchase of vehicle which includes all and it does not categorically pay any amount for insurance and tax.With these and other contentions, the OP also denying any deficiency in service on its part, prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

5. Parties have filed certain documents.The complainant as well as OP.2 filed affidavits in support of their cases.Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

6. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP.1 vide Invoice No.VSL14000531 dt.28.2.2015 for Rs.6, 61,249/- with financial assistance of OP.3 and the vehicle has been insured with OP.2 vide Policy No.3004/MI-02643659/00/000 valid from 28.2.2015 to 27.2.2016.The complainant stated that on the next day of purchase, on the way to a nearby temple to perform PUJA, the vehicle met with an accident near DHH, Koraput.The fact of accident was reported to the local Police and the copy of FIR is available on record.The complainant has also intimated the fact to the Insurance Co. and for registration of claim he has filed necessary documents. The insured vehicle has been inspected by the surveyor deputed by OP.2 and the survey report is available on record.

7. The case of the complainant is that the investigator conducted spot survey and surveyor conducted garage survey but the OP.2 did not take any step to settle the claim and on contact the OP.2 over telephone denied to settle the claim.The OP.2 in his counter stated that the insured vehicle was not registered and was not available with a valid road tax, fitness, road permit at the material time of accident.The OP.2 has filed couple of documents requesting the complainant to furnish Permit of the vehicle and stated that due to want of permit of the vehicle they closed the claim of the complainant.

8. It is seen that the vehicle purchased on 28.2.2015 and on the next day of purchase, the vehicle met with an accident and since then lying in the garage exposed to sun and rain.However, the vehicle was insured on 28.2.23015 but the OP.1 could not deposit the tax on 28.2.15 due to link failure.Next day i.e. on 01.3.15 was Sunday and holiday.On 02.3.2015 a sum of Rs.33, 415/- has been paid to RTO towards tax and fees of the vehicle.The plea of the OP.2 is that at the time of accident the vehicle was not registered and tax was not paid.If on 28.2.15 there was a link failure and 01.3.15 was holiday, then how could it be possible on the part of OP.1 to deposit tax?As per M. V. Act there exists 15 days period to deposit tax and register the vehicle from the date of purchase and also a fine period is there but insurance is mandatory on the date of purchase.In the above circumstances, we do not find any fault on the part of OP.1 or the complainant for non deposit of tax on the date of purchase.Further when the vehicle is lying in the garage from the next date of its purchase, it is not necessary to obtain permit of the vehicle by the complainant.Hence insisting permit by the OP.2 to settle the claim is not genuine.

9. The Surveyor as well as OP.2 stated in this case that the insured vehicle was not registered and was not available with valid tax, fitness, and permit at the time of accident.It is seen that the vehicle met with accident on the next day of purchase.It was quite impossible on the part of OP.1 and the complainant to do this.Hence this plea is not tenable under law.In this connection, reliance can be placed to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in IFFCO Tokio Gen. Fin. Co. Ltd. Vrs. Pratima Jena reported in CPR 2012 (2) 270 wherein it has been held that “Insurance Co. is not entitled to repudiate the claim on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered”.In view of above decision it is concluded that there is nothing in the insurance policy which could exonerate Insurance Co. from the liability on the ground of non registration of vehicle.Therefore, delay in settlement of claim amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.2.

10. In this case the complainant has advanced his claim and submitted the estimate of OP.1.Since it is a new car and considering the repair and replacement of genuine parts, the repairer has estimated a sum of Rs.97, 452/-.On the other hand the surveyor has estimated the cost of repair at Rs.64, 000/- taking all aspects into consideration.As per settled principle of law, the surveyor’s report is an important document and cannot be ignored easily unless it is discredited by proper evidence.Hence we allow the estimate of Rs.64, 000/- of the surveyor being genuine is the liability of OP.2 in this case with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of accident.

11. It is also a settled principle of law that the insurance claim must be honestly settled.In this case, the OP.2 without authority has held up the claim of the complainant for long two years.The vehicle is lying in the garage accumulating depreciation for 2 years.Further we certainly feel that the rate of motor parts after 2 years must have increased, so also the labour charges.We have already held that the OP.2 has committed deficiency in service by not settling the claim in time.Due to such inaction of the OP.2, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure.Further due to non plying of the vehicle, the complainant sustains loss and also he was to pay EMIs to financier with OD charges and penal interest.In the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled for some compensation and costs.Considering the loss and sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.30, 000 /- towards compensation and Rs.10, 000/- towards cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.The garage rent if any charged by OP.1 is the liability of OP.2 and the salvage is the property of the complainant.

               Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.64, 000/- towards insurance               claim with interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.03.2015 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.10, 000/- towards                 costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.The garage rent if any is to be borne by                 OP.2 and the salvage is the property of the complainant.

(to dict.)