IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR. Present: 1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President 2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member, 3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member. Dated the 5th day of January,2018. C.C.Case No.96 of 2015 Sarat kumar Barik S/O Hemanta kumar Barik At. Bayanbenapur P.O/,P.S. Bhandari pokhari Dist.Bhadrak ?? ??....Complainant . . (Versus) 1.Hinduja Ley land Finance Ltd, Corporate office ,167/169 ,3rd floor Annasalai,Saidapet, Chennai. 2.Hinduja Ley land Finance Ltd, Chorda Bye pass Road, At/P.O.Jajpur Road, Dist.jajpur. ?????..Opp.Parties. For the Complainant: Sri B.N.Panda, Advocate. For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2 Sri S. ch.Pradhan, P.K.Dhal, Advocates Date of order: 05.01.2018. MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER . Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner. The fact relevant as per complaint petition is that the petitioner being a poor person for maintaining his livelihood and his family purchased a Mini commercial vehicle bearing No.OD-04-D-7625 taking financial assistance of Rs.3,60,,000/-from the O.Ps on the strength of an hypothecation agreement. As per term and condition of the agreement the loan amount along with interest shall be repaid within 48 nos. of equal EMI. That after entering into an agreement with the O.Ps the petitioner received the vehicle with insurance cover of Tata AIG vide policy No.0153154107 and total premium of Rs.20,011/- has been paid by the petitioner and the financer handed over the Insurance policy to the petitioner. That as per terms of agreement the petitioner paid the EMI regularly to the O.Ps and authorized him to paid the insurance premium in time till provide the NOC to the petitioner and accordingly the EMI has been fixed including the insurance premium and registration charges. That due to slight delay to pay the EMI the petitioner also paid Rs. 62,005/ to the O.P on dt.29.7.15 with DPC . Similarly the O.Ps taken custody of D.D -1 keys , 2. Form no.21, 3.Invoice certificate , 4. Insurance certificate, 5. Delivery gate pass 6. Agreement paper etc at the time of delivery of the vehicle. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no scope of the petitioner to pay separate Insurance premium till received the NOC of the above vehicle. Therefore the petitioner requested the O.Ps before expiry of Insurance Policy for renewal of the same and the O.Ps assured to do the Insurance very soon .In the mean time the vehicle met with an accident at Manpur Chhak and the crowed set fire the vehicle on the road and the vehicle is totally destroyed on 4.10.15 . Thereafter the petitioner rushed to the O.P?s office but neither they co-operate nor release the Insurance paper and due to their gross negligence , the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss and sustained injury which can not be compensated in terms of money . Accordingly the petitioner filed the present dispute with the payer to direct the O.Ps to pay the damaged cost of the vehicle with interest. After notice the O.P entered appearance and subsequently filed their written version taking following stands: That the present complaint is not maintainable in eye of law. Hence is liable to be rejected prima facie on the ground of written version raised by the O.ps. The O.Ps prays the issue of maintainability of the complaint petition ifself be decided as a preliminary issue before going into merits of the case. The O.ps are the finance companies not the Insurance company .The O.Ps duty is to financ? the vehicle but the insurance company duty is to investigate the accident claim and process claim accordingly. As the O.Ps have financed the vehicle of the captioned customer his duty is to co-ordinate with the customer and Insurance company for the Insurance . In the mean time for payment of the Insurance premium the petitioner defaulted and paid the defaulted amount in the last day of the expiry date and not submitted all his documents accordingly. The objection raised by the O.Ps as follows ; The O.Ps is neither in fault nor responsible for petitioner gross mistake and fault. The O.P communicated to the petitioner for payment of arrear dues as well as submission of 1st years original Insurance policy paper and RC book for Insurance renewal on 13.07,15 as per agrrement. The petitioner never responded to the same and violated article -12 as well as article -2-10 of the agreement for which the O.P could not able to submit the required documents before Insurance office for renewal of the policy of the vehicle . The present petitioner without any cause of action has filed dispute against the O.P . Therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. submits that the present complaints is false ,fictitious , baseless and is a malafied attempt on the part of the petitioner for unlawful and unjust enrichment .That the O.P submits that they have received all the articles stated by the petitioner but received the Xerox copy of insurance paper which is not acceptable for renewal without the original one .The O.P communicated to the petitioner for payment of arrear dues as well as submission of 1st year original Insurance policy paper and RC book for Insurance renewal on 13.07.15 as per the agreement, but the petitioner never responded to the same and violated Article -12 as well as Article - 2 ? 10 of the agreement for which the O.P could not be able to submit the required documents before the Insurance authority for renewal of the Insurance policy of the vehicle. The petitioner is without any cause of action against the O.P and is therefore the case is liable to be dismissed. On the date of hearing we perused the record along with documents in details and observed that 1.It is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the above cited commercial vehicle with the financial assistance of the O.Ps. 2.It is also undisputed fact that the 1st insurance was done by the financer which covers from 14.07.14 to 13.07.15. 3 .It is also a fact that there is some defaulted outstanding against the petitioner and subsequently after receiving the letter from the O.Ps on dt. 11.7.15 and 13.7.15 regarding defaulted EMI the petitioner deposited the same of Rs. 62,005/- on dt. 29.7.15 5.The plea taken by the O.Ps regarding the 1st year original Insurance policy bond and RC book for renewal of the insurance policy is not sustainable as per law. Because it is the settled principle of law the Xerox copy of the above documents obtained before the ops when the vehicle is under hypothecation and the policy can be renewed by production of the same . Hence it is our considered view thus the O.Ps have committed patent deficiency of service and unfair trade practice in not renewing the Insurance policy of the above vehicle after receipt of the defaulted money from the petitioner on 29 july 2015 and the vehicle has been set fire on 4.10.15 Accordingly it is the mandatory duty of the O.Ps to insure the vehicle after receipt of the insured premium from the petitioner . Hence this Order The case is disposed of on contest against the O.Ps . The O.Ps are directed to pay the petitioner the assessed value of the vehicle within two months hence after receipt of the order, as we arrived at the conclusion that it is a case of total loss . No cost. This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 5th day of January,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.