ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint for seeking to pay Rs.25,351/- being the repairs charge, compensation and costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is the owner of TVS-Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-03 M 7671 The complainant purchased the said vehicle from the 4th opp.party by availing financial assistance from the 1st and 2nd opp.party by entering into a loan agreement No.KE 27123746 dt. 31.12.2003. The 1st and 2nd opp.parties are the financiers of TVS vehicles and the 4th opp.party is the dealer of TVS vehicles. The agent of the 1st and 2nd opp.parties approached the complainant and appraised the complainant about the positive factor of the financial assistance extended by the opp.parties 1 and 2 The comp0lainant availed the financial assistance of the opp.parties 1 and 2 and signed the agreement at the office of the 4th opp.party. The agency of the opp.parties 1 and 2 had collected 35 post dated cheques from the complainant towards the payment of the instalments. The complainant had insured the vehicle with 3rd opp.party vide policy No.5365/06 which is valid fore the period from 25.10.2006 to 24.10.2006 The policy issued by the 3rd opp.party expired on the midnight of 24.10.2006. The complainant believed that the policy was renewed by he opp.parties 1 and 2 and the complainant was using the vehicle. While so on 8.4.2007 the complainant met with an accident. A Maruti car bearing Reg.No.KL-2-4104 hit on the complainant’s motorcycle thereby the complainant sustained severe physical injuries and the motor cycle was completely damaged. The Punalur Police has registered on FIR vide No.20/017 dt. 12.4.2007 regarding the accident. The accident was intimated to the 1st and 2nd opp.parties, the opp.parties inturn informed the complainant to repair the vehicle and the opp.parties 1 and 2 will be paying the repair charges along with other damages. Accordingly the vehicle was entrusted to FT Motors, S.N. college Junction, Chemmannoor, Punalur.otors has issued a bill for Rs.15,351/- for the spare parts and labour charges. The complainant had spent another amount of Rs.10,000/- towards spare parts from outside and also towards expenses for shifting the vehicle from the place of accident to the workshop of the F.T. Motors. Since the opp.parties 1 and 2 have not taken any steps to pay the amount, the complainant has spent all amount . The complainant was shocked to near that the opp.parties 1 and 2 has not renewed the policy as agreed by them as per clause No.10 of the agreement. The complainant had taken a huge amount by way of interest for paying repairs charges. There is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The 1st and 2nd opp.party filed version contending, as follows: The averment contained in para 1 are true and hence admitted. It is admitted by the complainant in para 2 that he had insured the vehicle with 3rd opp.party vide Policy No.5365/06 which is valid for a period from 25.10.2006 to 24.10.2006. There is no clause contained in the agreement barring the complainant from renewing the insurance policy. The opp.parties 1st and 2nd have collected an amount of Rs.1251/- in advance towards the payment of insurance premium for two years is utterly false and hence denied. The company had not collected such an amount for making payment for insurance premium for 2 years. The 1st and 2nd opp.parties had no knowledge whether the complainant met with an accident on 8.4.2007. There is no promise from the side of the opp.parties to pay rapir charges along with other damages. The There is no liability on the part of the finance company to see the vehicle repaired. The 1st and 2nd opp.parties have no liability to pay any amount for the work done by the F.T. Motors, Chemmannur.. There is no negligence or lack of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opp.party. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. The 3rd opp.party filed a separate version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is totally a stranger to this opp.party, with whom no contract of insurance existed in respect of his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-2M/7671 as on the alleged date of the law sustained to the vehicle. The complainant was full aware of the fact that his vehicle was having no insurance coverage with this opp.party as on the date of accident as per the averments given in the complaint itself. So the complainant has unnecessarily impleaded and dragged this opp.party to this complaint for which this opp.party is entitled to get compensatory cost from the complainant as contemplated under the provisions of Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegation made in the complaint that the 3rd opp.party was having knowledge about the terms and conditions of the loan agreement between the complainant and the opp.parties 1 and 2 is totally baseless and false and hence denied. The complainant has approached the Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts regarding the case. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3rd opp.party. Hence the 3rd opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant Pw.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties POINTS: From the side of complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext.P1 to P5. Opp.parties 1to 3 cross examined the PW.1. Opp.parties did not adduce any or documentary evidence. Opp.party 4 after receiving notice, did not appear before the Forum. Hence Opp.party 4 was set exparte. In this case there is no dispute that the complainant has availed finance assistance from the opp.parties 1 and 2 for purchasing a motor cycle and also at the time of availing financial assistance, the complainant has insured the vehicle with the 3rd opp.party which is valid from 25.10.2005 to 24.10.2006. According to the complainant at the time of executing loan agreement the opp.party 1 and 2 collected insurance premium for the subsequent 2 years and they agreed to the complainant that they shall renew the policy for the subsequent 2 years. But opp.parties 1 and 2 denied the said contention of the complainant. Accoridng to them they had not received any amount for taking insurance policy for subsequent two years. Ext. P1 is the agreement produced from the side of complainant which was executed by opp.parties 1 and 2 with the complainant. In Ext. P1 in the column other payment collected the opp.parties 1and 2 had collected Rs.1251/- as advance insurance for 2 years. That shows that opp.parties 1 and2 collected insurance policy for the subsequent 2years. The point found accordingly. Complainant’s next contention is that as per clause 10 of Ext.P1 the opp.party 1 and 2 have legal obligation to renew the insurance policy for the subsequent two years. Opp.party’s contention is that there is no such clause in the agreement casting any liability on opp.party 1 and 2 to take insurance for the subsequent two years and also according to clause 10 the renewal of policy has to be done by the complainant at his own responsibility. As per clause 10 of Ext.P1 “Company will be arranging to renew the insurance for the asset on the respective due dates till the expiry of the contract and you are advanced not to renew the insurance on your own till the expiry of the contract” That means the opp.parties 1 and 2 will make arrangement to renew the insurance for the subsequent years till the expiry of the contract. On the basis of clause10 condition opp.parties 1 and 2 collected Rs.1251/- as advance insurance policy in advance. Opp.parties 1 and 2 cannot evade from clause 10 of Ext.P1 agreement. Non renewal of policy for subsequent years is a clear deficiency in service on the side of opp.parties 1 and 2. Through Ext.P2 complainant prove that on 8.4.2007, the vehicle met with an accident. Ext.P3 is the bill for repair charges which amount to Rs.15351/-. Since there is deficiency in service from the side of opp.parties 1 and 2 complainant is entitled to get relief. As far as opp.parties is concerned there is no deficiency in service from their side. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.20000/- to the complainant as repair charges and also for shifting charges of the vehicle from the place of accident to the workshop. Opp.parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one .month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Nagalingam List of documents for the complainant P1.- Loan agreement. P2. – Copy of FIR P3. – Bill P4. – Photocopy of Body certificate P5. – Certificate of Insurance of Motorcycle. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties | 
