None appears  for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent is present.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant had incurred a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the opposite party–Bank to purchase the Tractor and Trolley. While the matter stood  thus, the opposite party-Bank without any rhyme and reason as well as without any prior seizure notice, on 3.3.2011 while the son of the complainant was driving the tractor seized the tractor and trolley forcibly from his possession. The complainant alleged that the action of the opposite party-bank was illegal and improper. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint petition.

4.        The opposite party-bank took the plea in the written version that as per the agreement, the complainant filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint because for the same cause of action, the matter is lying in the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.

5.        After hearing the both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order dismissing the complaint.

            “ xxx   xxx  Thus in view of the above and considered to the pendency of the case before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa on the  same cause of action, we are not inclined  to accept the claim of the complainant but one contentions of the opposite party are to be accepted. The petition dated 25.5.2013 filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party is disposed of accordingly.

   Under the above circumstances, the present consumer complaint needs no further arguments and stands dismissed without any order as to cost.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant filed appeal memo stating that the learned District Forum without considering the submission of the complainant passed the impugned order. He submitted that without notice to the complainant seizure of the vehicle was illegal and that matter was challenged before the High Court. However, the opposite party released the vehicle on 2.12.2011 on certain terms and conditions. Learned District Forum without awaiting for the next event passed the impugned order which should be set aside. It is only submitted that the action taken by the opposite party is illegal and improper and compensation should be payable to the complainant.

7.        Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that learned District Forum after verifying the fact of seizure passed the appropriate order. Since the matter is lying with the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint petition rightly.

8.        Considered the submissions made in the appeal memo and contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the impugned order.

9.        The observation of the learned District Forum at paragraph-2 is as follows:-

          “2.  We have heard the case in a detail and perused the documents filed on record. We have also gone through the citation filed by the learned counsel for the complainant. On perusal of the case record, it  reveals that the complainant has already preferred a case before Hon’ble High Court of Odisha, Cuttack in W.P.(C) No. 22897 of 2011 for release of seized Tractor and Trolley. But the complainant without waiting for verdict of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha has filed this case for compensation which is seemed to be pre-matured. It would be prejudiced if we pass any order on the same cause of action. The learned counsel for the complainant has stressed on the  decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vrs. Vishwabharathi House Building in Civil Appeal No. 4613 and 4614 of 1999. We have carefully gone through the citation filed by the learned counsel for the complainant and come to the conclusion that the line of the case and  verdict thereon of the Supreme Court of India does not assimilate and different to the present dispute at hand.

            Thus in view of the above and considered to the pendency of the case before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa on the  same cause of action, we are not inclined  to accept the claim of the complainant but one contentions of the opposite party are to be accepted. The petition dated 25.5.2013 filed by the learned counsel for the opposite party is disposed of accordingly.

            Under the above circumstances, the present consumer complaint needs no further arguments and stands dismissed without any order as to cost.”

10.     In view of the aforesaid observation of the learned District Forum and the fact that vehicle has been released, we find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned District Forum, the appeal needs no consideration. The impugned order is confirmed.

11.     The Appeal is dismissed. No cost.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.