1.   Alleging deficiency of service e and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against the O.P for a direction not to claim any further dues and pray for compensation.
2. The case of the complainant is that,  he had  made a finance  before the O.P for purchase of one TATA Ace  to maintain his livelihood .The complainant  paid Rs.80,000/- towards down payment  on the said finance and rest amount Rs.2,20,000/- was financed by the O.P on 2.3.2010.The complainant made regular payment of his  monthly installment  at the rate of Rs.7,400/- including insurance premium Rs.734.04 paise per month to the O.P. The O.P further received Rs.34,500/- towards insurance of the vehicle for four years including one year of free insurance coverage from the complainant to insure his vehicle under Bajaj Allianz company Ltd, Bhubaneswar.The O.P only provide a cover note for one year  from 30.3.2010 to 29.3.2011.The O.P did not provide insurance certificate for the subsequent  two years although he  had received the premium amount in advance. The complainant not able to get fitness certificate,  insurance  coverage from time to time after laps of  1^st year insurance coverage. The complainant could not ply the vehicle without insurance coverage for which he has not earning  properly for his family. The complainant approached the O.P on several occasions to provide the insurance certificate for smooth running of his vehicle. The complainant also made several representations before the O.P for issuance of insurance certificate. The O.P could not take any steps even if the complainant approached on several occasions. The complainant got mental agony for the loss of his earning livelihood and at last came to this forum for a direction not to demand further dues and prays for compensation.
3.  After being noticed, the O.P appeared and filed his counter in this case. The case of the O.P is that, the case is not maintainable as the complainant has approached this forum by suppressing the material facts. The case of the complainant does not come within the definition of C.P.Act and the allegation made therein are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is a chronic default in  payment  of his monthly installment for  which  there is  over dues charges  made against him  and the allegation made by the complainant are all false and denied .The O.P also made the insurance policy and  all the policy documents were sent  to   him through general post. The allegation made by the complainant are all false and denied by the O.P and prays for dismissal of the case.
4. The complainant filed documents showing the payment of his monthly installments and also representations regarding issuance of insurance certificate from the O.P for smooth running of the vehicle. The O.P also filed documents like payment statement received information and also the payment scheduled and also the insurance certificate sent to the complainant.
5. The point for determination in this case whether the complainant is a consumer against the O.P and whether   the O.P caused any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by not supplying the insurance paper to the complainant.
6. The complainant had taken a Finance from the O.P after observing all necessary formalities with the O.P. The complainant had made a down payment of Rs.80, 000/- before the O.P. for finance for TATA Ace vehicle .The complainant also made payment of installment before the O.P as such   the complainant became a consumer against the O.P. The O.P made allegation that  the complainant  is a regular defaulter by not payment  his monthly installment. Taking into  consideration for repayment documents  it is seen that the complainant had made payment  of Rs.7,900/- on 27.7.2010 and receipt  was also  handed over to the complainant vide  No.302717349, but the document furnished by the O.P shows that  payment of Rs.6,550/-.Another receipt dtd.3.9.2010 showing the payment of Rs.8,500/- before the O.P. vide receipt NO.303596425, but the documents filed by the O.P shows that  payment of Rs.5,800/-. Another  receipt of the payment of Rs.14,000/- on dtd.16.2.2012 vide receipt No.307551123, but the documents  shows that payment of Rs.11,139/-.The complainant  even if  made payment  regularly to O.P. there is discrepancy  in showing  the payment  which proves that  the O.P. has caused  deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  against the complainant. The complainant also made several representations before the O.P for issuance of the insurance certificate even if the complainant made payment earlier. The O.P was silent and  did not produced any documents merely showing that all the insurance papers has been transmitted to the complainant through general post. This is caused also deficiency of service made by him against the complainant .For the above said reason the complainant could not ply his vehicle and got mentally shocked and harassment.
7. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and documents filed by him, so also submission made by the O.P along with  documents filed by him, we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P not claim any dues from the complainant for the aforesaid reason as mentioned above and the O.P will pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand ) only  towards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P for realization of awarded amount. This case is disposed of accordingly.

  Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 28 day of February, 2017.