Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member-This is a complaint U/S. 12 of C.P. Act- 1986 filed by the complainant to pass necessary orders to restrain the Ops for not taking any coercive/ un lawful/ illegal action in recovery of the claimed sum of Rs.2,40,658/- only from the complainant and not to repossess the alleged vehicle bearing No. OR - 09 D -7772 of the complainant.

            The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops and to maintain his livelihood purchased a Tata LPT 1613 bearing regd. No. OR - 09 D -7772 from the Ops by availing loan Rs.3.00 (Lacs) by executing loan agreement with the Ops and made regular payment of the loan amount through installments and obtain receipts of payment of installment and the complainant has already been paid to Ops more than Rs.6.00 (Lacs) towards his loan. In the meantime the alleged truck bearing No. OR - 09 D -7772 met with an accident and subsequently being involved in a false case by police and the vehicle was detained by police for a long period and to this the Ops have demanded money to the complainant by serving a notice on 27.02.13 to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 40, 658/- only within 7 days time of receipt of the notice and incase failure to pay, the Ops have threatened to repossess the alleged vehicle and after getting said notice the complainant contacted to Ops to settle the matter amicably by taking previous repayment records. But the effort of the complainant was in vain and the Ops have demanding money repeatedly which has been caused the complainant mental agony and harassment and also financial loss. A C.C No. 12/2013 was also filed by this complainant in this Hon’ble Forum which was dismissed for default of the complainant and to get rid of the illegal claim of the Ops, hence this case –

                        In support filed:

1. Receipts showing payment of EMIs from the year 2008 to 2011 (original)-25 sheets

                After service of notice to Ops 1&2 appeared and filed their version stating that the complainant has suppressed material facts before this Hon’ble forum and the complaint liable to be dismissed/ rejected on this ground alone and also states that as per terms and conditions of loan-cum-Hyp. Agreement lack of territorial jurisdiction since Chennai Courts have jurisdiction as per binding contract of the parties and the relationship between the parties in pursuant to a contract and the complainant nowhere contended or averred that this Ops have breached or violated any of the provisions of the contract i.e. loan-cum-Hyp. Agreement and as per arbitration clause of the Hyp. Agreement all disputes, differences, questions whatever arise out of this Agreement shall be referred to Arbitrator and the present complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and blackmailing the Ops and the complaint was filed just to evade his legal liability towards Ops and the complainant has not approached with clean hands and the contents enshrined in para 8 of the complaint petition are matter of records and the Ops denies that there has been any deficiency by this Ops as alleged and also denied that the complainant has suffered any losses on account of the alleged act of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of these Ops as alleged. Hence the complaint petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed with cost.

                        In support filed

1. Summary of loan for vehicle OR - 09 D -7772 and A/C statement as on 07.04.15 – 3 sheets

            Heard, the learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the materials available in the records. It is not dispute that the complainant availed loan in order to get the alleged vehicle bearing No. OR - 09 D -7772 from the Ops by executing loan agreement. The main allegation of the complainant is that in spite of payment of Rs.6.00 (Lacs) the Ops have demanded a sum of Rs.2, 40, 658/- illegally by serving a notice on dt.27.02.2013 and on request to Ops to settle the matter amicably since the complainant could not earned money due to a false case and detention of the alleged vehicle for a long time and the Ops have threatened to repossess the alleged vehicle if money not paid by the complainant.

            The counsel for the Ops submitted that the complainant filed this case on the basis of false and concocted story concealing the real state of affairs and the complainant was regular defaulter and the C.D. Case No. 12/2013 filed earlier in this Hon’ble Forum was dismissed for default of the complainant as enshrined in para- 8 of the complaint and the present case is meaningless and anomalous from these Op’s point of view, since it is evident that a sum of Rs.7, 41, 330/- is still recoverable from the complainant as shown from the statement of A/C as on dt.07.04.15 is a chronic defaulter and at the time of Agreement a copy of the same was spared to him and filed this case just to evade the legal proceeding likely to be initiated by these Ops against complainant and these Ops denied that any deficiency of service made by these Ops and the present case is premature in nature having no cause of action occurred.

             So from the above discussion and on perusal of documents in record we held that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service made by the Ops and also suffered any losses on A/C of act of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Ops as alleged by the complainant who comes to Court must come with Clean hands as the case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and the relationship between the parties is that of a debtor and creditor and the dispute cannot be a subject matter of complaint and the complainant is not deserves to get any relief from this forum and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed having no merit.

Accordingly, the case is disposed of.