As per direction of the hon,ble SCDRC, odisha, cuttack vide its letter No 3078 dot 3.12.10 the case is taken up by and the present president is not participated in this case as he was holding power for the complainant prior to his appointment as president of this forum and we dispose of the matter on merit.

This is a complainant for a direction for Ops to release the alleged vehicle of the complainant  bearing regd no OR-09-D-8164 on receipt of Rs 1,03,600/ towards back installments till july 07 along with repo charges and to pay a sum of 2,86,000 towards compensation and financial loss and cost of litigation and in failure direction be given to refund rs 4,97,000/-for the loss sustained by  the complainant as a while due to illegal seizure of the complainant’s vehicle.

The case of the complainant in brief is that the official of ops finance company have seized the vehicle of the complainant bearing regd no OR-09-D-8164 on dot 18.6.07 without serving if any prior notice and by means of force engaging muscleman from the possession of the driver of the vehicle and for release of the vehicle demanded the entire future installments through this complainant is not liable for those payments as this complainant is not liable for those payments as this complainant along with a petition u/s. release the alleged vehicle pending disposal of the original case. In support filed Xerox copy of RC Book, repayment schedule, payment receipts, seizure list, letter of Op dot 27.7.07.

After service of notice Ops filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable a the complainant is not a consumer under the provision of C.P Act and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute. kolkata court has only jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising out of the hire purchase  agreement made between the parties. A part from the said vehicle has not merit for livelihood. So the transactions comes under commercial purpose and as the agreement permit the financier to take possession of its financed assets I,e the alleged vehicle and there is no legal impediments on such possession as taken and hence these Ops have acted as per agreement and no way deficient in service and prayed to dismiss the case with costs.

Perused the materials on records. it is not dispute that the complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle taking a loan Rs 6,26,000/- after executing hypothecation agreement with the ops and agreed to pay said loan  by way of 48 monthly installments 19,200/-each per month and it is also not dispute that due to default of  EMI and the ops have taken possession of the alleged vehicle and after receipt of interim order passed by this forum on dot 31.7.07 released the vehicle on receipt of the order amount of rs 1,03,00/-along with the repo charges and further the complainant fails to prove the forcible possession of the vehicle as taken possession of the alleged vehicle  as the complainant was defaulted the EMI’s at that time.

On this back drop the complainant avoiding to the Emis of Ops the Hon’ble Apex court has specifically India Ltd dot 10.2.06 that if agreement permits the financier to take possession of the vehicle there is no legal impediments on such possession being taken. of course the hirer can avail such statutory  remedy as may be available. But more fact that possession had been taken cannot be a ground to contend that hire in prejudiced and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court & considering upon the facts & circumstances and we do not found any negligence of the ops which can be named as deficiency of service and liable for any compensation and accordingly having no merit the case is dismissed without costs. The case is accordingly disposed of.