Presented by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member . The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provisions of Consumer Protect Act-1986. The brief facts of the Complaint as follows:-

As per the contention of the Complainant the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the insurer and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the financer of the Bolero Plus vehicle bearing Regd No. OR-17-H-4595 Engine No. GH A4K57362 and Chassis No. MAIWG2GHKA2K84678. The afore mentioned vehicle has been purchased by the petitioner on hire purchase basis on Dt.31/10/2010, being financed by the Opposite Parties vide H.P. contract No. Fz562200, policy No. VPC02735170001Q00.

The Complainant paid all the loan amount with the satisfaction of the Opposite Parties. No objection certificate has been issued by the Opposite Party No.1(one) infavour of the Complainant. The hire purchase agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party's has already been terminated and the Opposite Party's intimated the same to the Complainant vide letter NO.01/10/2011.

The Complainant approached Opposite Party No.2(two) many times to hand over and the 2^nd key of the said vehicle to him but Opposite Parties avoided the same with different pretexts. A registered letter with A.D. Was also sent by the Complainant to the Opposite party No.2(two) on Dt.11/07/2012 to hand over the 2^nd key of vehicle to the Complainant but yield no result. The Complainant than sent advocate notice which the Opposite Party No.2(two) refused to receive the same.

The Complainant further apprehend theft of vehicle and also criminal activities with that which by the wrong doer as the custody of the 2^nd key of the vehicle is not with him.

The Complainant contends that such negligent act of Opposite Parties inflicted mental pain and agony on the mind of the Complainant.

The Complainant prays for compensation of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only for deficiency in service and litigation expense of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only from the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant in support of his claim relies upon xerox copies of the following documents:-

1. IPO of Rs.100/-(Rupees one hundred)

2. Advocate Notice Dt.08/10/2012 to the Opposite Party No.1(one).

3. Postal receipt Dt.08/010/2012.

4. Refusal registered letter Dt.08/10/2012 by Opposite Party No.2(two).

5. Copy of AD Dt.18/07/2012,

6. Copy of R.C.Book of vehicle bearing Regd No. OR-17-H-4595.

7. Copy of Notice of Complainant to Opposite Party No.2(two).

8. Copy of cancellation of hire purchase interest by Sundaram Finance Ltd.

Being noticed the Opposite Party No.1(one) approached and filed his version through his advocate with a complete denial to the complaint.

Opposite Party No.2(two) refused to receive the notice and set ex-parte vide it order Dt.22/04/2012 by this Forum.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) contends that a private car package policy bearing No. VPCO273517000100 had been taken by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No.1(one) for a period from Dt.30/10/2010 to Dt.29/10/2011. The claim of the Complainant for non submitting the 2^nd key of the vehicle is totally against Opposite Party No.2(two) and no allegation is made against the Opposite Party No.1(one), rather he has been arrayed as a proforma party in this case. There is no deficiency or negligence in service provided by the Opposite party No.1(one) in any manner. The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs against him.

Having gone through the pleadings of the Parties, documents annexed to the record the issues likely to be decided as follows:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service ?

2. What relief the Complainant is entitle for ?

The documents annexed to the case record i.e. cancellation of hire purchase interest letter Dt.01/10/2011 issued by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd 46 , Whites Road Royapattah, Channai and letter at 01/10/2011 in form No.35 issued to R.T.A., Bargarh by Sundaram Finance ltd and office endorsement of R.T.O., Bargarh Dt.25/11/2011 clearly reveals that the Complainant has repaid the entire loan amount sanctioned by the Opposite Party No.2(two) to the satisfactory of the Opposite Parties and termination of agreement of hire purchase has been issued by the Opposite parties through official letters. Hence the Complainant is entitle to be handed over the 2^nd keys of the vehicle bearing No. OR-17-H-4595 and non submission of the 2^nd key of the vehicle to the Complainant is certainly a deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties.

The Opposite Party No.1(one) being the insurer of the vehicle only and this being a complaint as to submission of 2^nd key of vehicle and the complaint does not speak any specific allegation against the Opposite Party No.1(one) in this regard, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is exonerated of the charges made in this complaint.

After the termination of hire purchase agreement, the Opposite Party No.2(two) the financier of the vehicle is legally obliged to hand over the 2^nd key of the vehicle to the Complainant and after lapse of more than one and half year also the Opposite Party No.2(two) retains the 2^nd key of the vehicle which is clear a negligence in service to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.2(two).

- O R D E R -

Considering all the facts, evidence on record, assertion and counter assertions by the Parties, the Forum order as follows:-

1. Exonerate the Opposite Party No.1(one) of the charges made against him in this case.

2. The Opposite Party No.2(two) is directed to hand over the 2^nd key of the Bolero Plus vehicle bearing Regd No. OR-17-H-4595 to the Complainant or in alternate the Opposite Party No.2(two) shall bear the expenses for changing the starter system of the vehicle with a new one along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards mental agony and litigation expenses, within one month from the date of Order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @12%(twelve percent) per annum till the realization of the amount.

3. If any eventuality occurred to the vehicle bearing No.OR-17-H-4595 for non compliance of this Order, the Opposite Party No.2(two) will be held respobsible for the same.

The complaint allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me.

                       Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

                  I agree,                                                                I agree,

    (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)                                  ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)

           M e m b e r.                                                            P r e s i d e n t.