Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent who appears in person.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being owner of Tata Truck bearing Registration No. OR-05-V-6068 has incurred loan from the OP to purchase the said truck. It is alleged inter alia that the OP being financer has taken responsibility of insuring the vehicle. In fact, the vehicle was insured at the instance of the OP. It is alleged inter alia that the insurance of the vehicle was expired in the midnight of  1.9.2008 and the complainant has approached the OP on 27.8.2008 to collect the renewed insurance policy as it is to be expired on 1.9.2008. It is alleged that the OP did not take step and finally made over the policy on 17.9.2008. Complainant alleged that in between 1.9.2008 to 17.9.2008 the vehicle remained off road for no fault of the complainant. So he sustained loss for the inaction of the OP. Therefore, he filed the complaint.

4.      OP was set ex parte. However, learned counsel for the OP submitted that they have got all documents to show that they have in fact informed the insurer on 1.9.2008 and the insurance was valid with effect from 1.9.2008. If opportunity is given they can produce the documents.

5.      After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                              “xxx   xxx   xxx

In the result, the complaint is hereby allowed exparte against the OP. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-for delay of sixteen days. The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1000/- payable by the OP to the complainant. The entire sum of Rs.11,000/- be paid by the OP to the complainant within one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same from the OP in accordance with law.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  they have got all documents to show that the delay of 15 days was not of his fault but the fault of the insurer. He submitted that if opportunity is given they would produce the documents. However, he submitted that at present after so many years if the matter is remanded the documents may not be available to satisfy the learned District Forum. So, he submitted to pass appropriate order as the case may be to allow the appeal.

7.      Respondent who is a counsel submitted that there is delay of 16 days to handover the insurance certificate by the OP. So there is deficiency in service by the OP to renew the insurance policy. So, he supports the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellant, the respondent who appears in person and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      All the facts are admitted by both the parties. Now question arises that the complainant’s vehicle remained off road with effect from 1.9.2008 to 17.9.2008. When the OP has taken the responsibility, he has to produce the policy for renew. If at all the policy was handed over 17 days delay for the reasons of the insurer, it could have been informed by the OP to the complainant well in advance. However, since it is a matter of 2009, we are not inclined to remand the matter and direct the OP to produce the documents. We asked the OP to produce the materials if at all available but the materials are not being produced before us. Thus, we find the impugned order is legal and correct and there is nothing to interfere with it. However, we reconsider the operative portion of the impugned order because it is admitted by parties that insurer has made it effect from 1.9.2008 and accordingly reduce the compensation to Rs.7,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- payable by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered. If the payment is not made within 30 days as asked above, it would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment.

10.    Appeal is  partly allowed accordingly. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.