Counsel for:

          The Complainant: Shri S.Chand, Advocate

          The Opp.Party 1: Shri M.R.Mohanty, Advocate

          The Opp.Party 2: Shri S.Choudhury,Advocate

                                                  JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The captioned consumer complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of O.ps for non release of insurance benefit claimed on account of the damages sustained to his insured vehicle in a road accident dt.15.11.2019 while insurance was in force.
2. The complainant seeks for the following reliefs:- (i) Removal of defective parts of the goods carrier vehicle and replacement of the same  by both party Ops ,(ii)award of compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of financial loss for the accident &  negligence of the Ops ,(iii) compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to be approved for mental  harassment due to negligence of the Ops,(iv) pass an order to provide insurance of the vehicle, (v) pass an order to the Mahendra Minasrva Automobiles Ltd. to provide cost of vehicle due to their  negligence to made permit of the vehicle (vi) pass an order to Chola Finance for the negligence, as he did not informed to the complainant about the permit of the vehicle not made in time  and  finance to the complainant, (vii) pass an order for compensation for not running of the vehicle and the party suffer a lot  as the bank deducting EMI automatic every month, (vii)  pass an order to stop deduction an interest charges till the disposal of the this complaint  and suitable order as the Hon’ble Court think fit and proper.
3. The facts as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents attached there with are that, the complainant is a registered owner of the vehicle Bulero Plus FEI 7TXL bearing Registration No. OD 03 M 4353 purchased from  M/s Mahindra Minverva Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. / OP 2 for a consideration of Rs.6,26,785/- being financed by OP 1/M/s Cholamandalam Finance & Investment Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd./OP 1.   It is further contended that, both the Ops are jointly dealing all types of company activities relating to selling of vehicle and doing all the paper works of the vehicle including valid fitness, permit & insurance etc. On dt.15.11.2019 said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident causing damage to the vehicle, matter of which was  reported to the Ops and  FIR was lodged at Tusura Police Station vide GD No.014 dt.17.11.2019 .The complainant claimed insurance benefit for the damage of the insured vehicle before the OP 1 and the Company after necessary inquiry sent a letter on dt.2.12.2019 and also sent a reminder letter on 16.12.2019 for submitting of permit & fitness certificate to settle the insurance claim of the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant produced valid fitness certificate and permit through the OP 2.
4. It is further contended that, whether the OP 2 had made permit certificate and that, whether he has paid tax or not is out of the knowledge of the complainant. It is alleged that, both the Ops are responsible for the negligence of making paper works properly.  The complainant approached the Ops time and again upon which they have made false assurance for settlement of the claim by producing necessary documents before the insurance company as & when required but not yet released the insurance benefit to the complainant for which the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. Hence, this complaint for granting of relief as mentioned above.
5. On being notice, the OP 1 filed the written version challenging the maintainability of the complaint for non joinder of necessary party and mis joinder of OP1. It is contended that the OP 1 being the financer of the vehicle has no role to decide or for settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant. The alleged vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose being finance by OP 1 as such the complainant is not a consumer under C.P.Act. It is further contended that, the OP 1 deals with finance matter only and in no way concern with insurance activities. Complainant has wrongly mentioned the name of OP 1 Company as “M/s Cholamandalam Finance and Investment Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd” in this case.  OP 1 being the financer has no way concern with the registration, fitness & permit of the vehicle, rather it is the duty of the complainant to arrange all the documents like registration, fitness, permit, insurance etc. of the alleged vehicle for use on the road.  However, the OP 1 has admitted the fact that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.6, 19,116/-. It is further contended that, the OP 1 never used to issue any letter for submission of any documents to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. It is the look out of the insurance company to settle the insurance claim of the complainant and not the financer/ O P1 . The allegation made on the complaint is no way connected with the financer/OP1 thus, there is no cause of action arose against the OP 1 for this complaint as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost against the OP 1.
6. The OP 2 filed their written version challenging the maintainability of this complaint for mis joinder of OP 2 7 non joinder of insurer as necessary party. It is contended that, the complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle being financed by the OP 1 for commercial purpose as such complainant is not a consumer under C.P.Act accordingly liable to be dismissed. However, OP 2 has admitted the fact that he has received one vehicle bearing registration      No.OD03M 4353 in damaged condition caused due to road accident and being the authorized dealer & service centre of the Bolero Pick up vehicle, they are dealing with the product of Mahindra & Mahindra  Co. Ltd. and provide warranty attention, free service and after service only to the customers. The OP 2 has received payment towards insurance of the vehicle and accordingly the vehicle was insured, copy of the insurance policy is delivered to the complainant. OP 2 never received any amount from the complainant towards registration, fitness and permit of the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.6, 19,116/- and insurance charges received by OP 2. The OP 2 has complied the mandatory of MV Act to insure the vehicle sold, obtained permit and fitness from the MV authority before come to the road which was issued for a definite period for subsequent insurance, fitness and permit of the alleged vehicle is to be obtained by the complainant/owner of the vehicle for its further use. The subject matter of this case is relating to settlement of insurance claim and op 2 is no way concern for non settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant. The OP 2 is made   a party with a frivolous and vexatious plea and that, there is no cause of action arose against the Op 2 ; as such complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP 2 with cost.
7. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the submission of rival parties.
8. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version & all the documents relied on by both the parties placed in the record, the points for determination before this Commission is, whether the complainant is a consumer of the Ops? Whether complainant is maintainable under C.P. Act  ? Whether the complainant is entitle for insurance benefits as claimed against the Ops there under the alleged insurance policy on account of damages sustained to his insured vehicle in a road accident on dt.15.11.2019 ?  Whether the Ops have deficient in service for non release of   insurance claim of the complainant? And whether the complainant is entitled for any other relief(s) ?
9. Both the Ops have contended that, alleged vehicle was purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose for which the complainant is not a consumer under C.P.Act but no cogent evidence is adduced by the Ops to proved that vehicle was purchased & used exclusively for commercial purposed by the complainant rather, it is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle from the Op 2 being financed by the OP 1 . As such we are of the opinion that, complainant is a consumer of the Ops.
10. We  observed that, insured vehicle got damaged in an accident causing loss to the insured /complainant and that, insurance policy vide Certificate No.3379/02528468/000/00 for the period of 24.10.2019 to 23.10.20120 was in force as on the date of loss. However, insurance company i.e “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd” with whom the vehicle was insured during the alleged period of loss is not made a party in this case. We are of the opinion that, presence of insurer “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd” is necessary for proper adjudication of this case.
11. The complainant is remaining absence consistently and have not taken any steps for amendment of this complaint petition and have failed to add insurer/ “Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd “ as a necessary party in this case as such we are of the opinion that, this complaint is certainly bad for non joinder of necessary party.
12. It is alleged that, both the Ops are responsible for the negligence of making paper works properly.  The complainant approached the Ops time and again upon which they have made false assurance for settlement of the claim by producing necessary documents before the insurance company as & when required but not yet released the insurance benefit to the complainant for which the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. On the other hand, the OP 2 has complied the mandatory of MV Act to insure the vehicle sold, obtained permit and fitness from the MV authority before come to the road which was issued for a definite period for subsequent insurance, fitness and permit of the alleged vehicle is to be obtained by the complainant/owner of the vehicle for its further use. The subject matter of this case is relating to settlement of insurance claim and op 2 is no way concern for non settlement of the insurance claim of the complainant. So also it is contended that, the OP 1 never used to issue any letter for submission of any documents to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. It is the look out of the insurance company to settle the insurance claim of the complainant and not the financer/ OP 1. It is found that ,the contention of the both the Ops that  allegation made on the complaint is no way connected with the financer/OP1 & seller /Op 1   thus, there is no cause of action arose against the OPs for this complaint as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost against the Ops remain unchallenged.
13. As per Sec. 38(6) of C.P.Act 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
14. . No evidence on affidavit as prescribed in C.P. Act 2019 is adduced by either the complainant. The photo copy of documents filed by the complainant as per list along with his complainant petition without  authenticated by fundamental evidence that, the photo copy is in fact a true copy of the original may not be accepted as evidence,(Reliance may placed on the ratio of judgement of Honourable Supreme Court in M. Chandra Vrs. M. Thangamuthu & another ,reported in 2010(ii) CLR (SC) 746 :(2010) 9 SCC 712 ) .Here the  complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence  as prescribed under C.P.Act  2019 to substantiate his claim.
15. Complainant has failed   to proved any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.
16. Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that this complaint sans merits. Hence, dismissed against the OPs on contest. However, no order as to cost.

    Dictated and corrected by me

           Sd/-

President

                        I   agree.                              Sd/-

                                                                Member                                    

                  Pronounced in open Commission today on this 13^th September 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly. Complainant could not be decided on time in want of quorum.

            Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.