1. Brief fact of the case of complainant is that he purchased one Hero HF Deluxe m/c bearing Chassis no. MBLHAR200JGJ09181, Eng. No. HA11ENJGJ06643, colour BBK and key no. 2802 from the O. P. No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 61,145/- which include the Ex-showroom price, insurance,  registration and processing fees under finance from O.P. No.3 and paid Rs. 25,000/- for down payment and the vehicle was financed for Rs. 36,145/- and monthly installment of Rs. 2,240/. It is alleged that in the month of March 2019, he deposited the installment of Rs. 2,240/- to the O.P. No. 3, but they did not issue the receipt and the in the month of April, 2019 the agent of O.P. No. 3 came to him and demanded the installment amount of Rs. 2,650/- instead of Rs.2,240/-.  While on asking, the concerned agent told that the O.p. No. 1 has only approved Rs. 16,000/- instead of Rs. 25,000/- and balance amount was kept with him.   On asking to O.P. No. 1 regarding the fact, who replied that the balance amount of Rs. 9,000/- is kept with him as per for further service.  It is also alleged that the O.P. No. 1 has not issued the relevant documents related to the alleged vehicle till date.  Thus suffer from mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund Rs. 9,000/- with interest, to fix the installment premium for Rs. 2,240/-, to reduce the rate of interest and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.

2. O.P. No. 1 appeared through his Ld. Counsel, who filed counter in shape of written version admitting the sale of alleged vehicle but denied all other allegations contending that since the concerned agent has not made as necessary party to the litigation, as such the case is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party.  It is also contended that the sale consideration of Rs. 61,984/- includes the Tax invoice of Rs. 49,000/-, Rs. 5,095/- as insurance premium, Rs. 4,650/- for Registration charge and Rs. 2,439/- as service for registration, Rs. 800/- for transportation of the alleged vehicle from Jeypore to Malkangiri, against which the complainant only paid Rs. 16,759/- as down payment vide receipt no. 1724 dated 10.01.2019 and the rest amount was financed by the O.P. No. 3 with 27 nos of installment, as such the complainant never paid Rs. 25,000/- towards down payment.It is further contended that the documents related to alleged vehicle has already handed over to the complainant and with other contentions, showing his no liability, he prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P. No. 2 through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter denying the allegations, have contended that the subject matter of the case relates only to the finance of the alleged vehicle and they have no role to play in it and with other contentions they have prayed to dismiss the case.

4. The O.P. No.3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel who filed the counter / written statement admitting the finance of alleged vehicle by them but strictly denying the allegations contending that the costs of alleged vehicle is of Rs. 61,984/- but not Rs. 61,145/- as alleged by complainant and they have financed Rs. 56,000/- but not Rs. 36,145/- and the complainant deposited only Rs. 16,759/- towards down payment but not Rs. 25,000/-, which carries 30 installment of Rs. 2,240/- each.  Out of total installment complainant has paid only two numbers of installment amounting Rs. 4,480/- and is liable to pay Rs. 49,280/ till July, 2019 and on many occasions the amount paid by way of cheque have been dishonoured by bank.  Further it is contended that the interest was fixed @ 7.99% p.a. but not @ 12.9% p.a. and accordingly, the complainant has paid only two times for Rs. 2,240/- in the month of March and May vide their receipt no. IND3153830 and IND4190729.  Further they have contended that for other allegations, they are no way related and showing their no liability, have prayed to dismiss the case.

5. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their submissions.  Perused the case records and material documents available therein.   At the time of hearing, all the parties are present except the complainant though several opportunities given to him to prove his submissions, as such we heard from the parties present.

6. On close perusal of the documents, it is ascertained that complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle from the O.P. No. 1 under finance from the O.P. No. 3.  The allegations of complainant that the O.P. No. 1 has not issued  relevant documents related to the alleged vehicle whereas the O.P. No. 1 has contended that they have already handed over the documents to the complainant.  We have perused the documents filed by the complainant and ascertained that he has filed (1) copy of delivery challan, (2) copy of Registration Certificate against the alleged vehicle, (3) copy of finance receipt issued by O.P. No. 3, (4) copy of insurance policy paper issued against the alleged vehicle.  It is a matter of surprise that the complainant has filed those documents, which as per his version, has not been handed over to him.  If not so, than how did he got such documents and from whom?  Since the complainant is absent during the hearing on repeated calls, as such we lost opportunities to hear from him.  We think complainant has not gone through such documents and could not understood clearly.
   
   Further allegation of the complainant is that he has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards down payment but has not filed any cogent evidence to that effect.Whereas the O.P. No. 1 has filed documents to prove their submissions that the complainant has paid only Rs. 16,759/- towards advance payment vide their receipt no. 1724 dated 10.01.2019. So also both the O.P. No. 1 & 3 have vehemently stated in their respective counter version by filing of documents to that effect.And all the documents filed by the O.Ps have not been challenged by the complainant, though he is aware of proceeding of the present dispute, as such the submissions in the counter versions of respective parties and documents by them remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Anuj Agarwal Vrs United India Insurance Co. Ltd, wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “There is no illegality or jurisdictional error where an order is passed on written version and document of OP unchallenged by the complainant”.  
   
   Further allegations of complainant is that O.P. No. 3 has fixed the interest @ 12.9% p.a. over the finance against the alleged vehicle and prayed for reduce the same, whereas the O.P. No. 3 has filed documents (1) loan application form and (2) copy of account statement, to prove that they have fixed the rate of interest @ 7.99% p.a.Considering the above documents, we think complainant has not clearly understood the system of finance and seek redress before the Forum.

7. Considering the above discussions, we think complainant has filed the present case without sufficient grounds, which deserves to be dismissed having no merit.  Hence this order.

                                                                                          ORDER

        Considering the above discussions, the complaint petition is herewith dismissed having no merits.  Parties to bear their own costs.

               Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of September, 2020.

                Issue free copy to the parties concerned.