: J U D G E M E N T   :

Sri D. C. Mishra, President.

          The  petitioner  Prafulla Mukhi has filed this case with  prayer to direct the opp.parties to release the  seized  vehicle OR 19L 2574 in his favour  immediately, to pay Rs. 50,000.00  as compensation to the  petitioner towards inconvenience loss, damaged, mental agony and  harassment  caused by the them, to pay Rs. 5,000.00 to him towards cost of  litigation and  grant  any other reliefs  as deemed fit and  proper as per the  law and equity.

2.       Briefly stated the complainant’s case runs thus:-

          That, the  complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 2,65,500.00 only from the opp.parties and  purchased a vehicle  (TATA Magic) bearing No. OR 19L 2574 and the loan was to be repaid  along with  interest of Rs. 1,09,701.00  only (total Rs. 3,75,201.00 ) in 47 installments  commencing  from 1.4.2011 to 1.2.2015  and the EMI was fixed  at Rs,7,9,83.00 only .It is alleged that the  complainant  was paying the EMIs  and  before  6.11.2014  he had already  paid Rs. 2,77,080.00  including  interest  out of  total loan  amount of Rs. 2,65,500.00 only  and the EMI period was continuing upto 2/2015 but  the opp.parties  whimsically  seized  the  vehicle  without any rhyme or reason  demanding repayment of  the entire  loan amount with interest. According to the petitioner , he  approached this  forum vide Misc Case No. 47 of 2014 and  this forum  directed the opp.parties on 20.1.2015 to release the vehicle but  they did not obey the order. It is  specifically  submitted that the  petitioner  being  a very  poor man was earning  his livelihood  through this  vehicle and making  the repayment of the loan regularly  with best  effort but due to  unwanted and prematured seizure and sale of the  vehicle  to another  person  with  a very low price  whimsically and without his knowledge, he has lost all hopes  of  life and  suffering harassment, inconvenience, loss, damage and mental agony. Hence he has  filed this case  seeking the reliefs as already stated  above  at para-1.

3.       The opp.parties have  contested the  case  by  filing  a joint written version with prayer to  dismiss the case with exemplary cost, on the  grounds that the  case is not maintainable , the complainant is not a consumer  under the opp.parties and  that   due  to default  in payment  of EMIs  of the  loan which the complainant had taken from the  opp.parties  for  purchasing  a TATA Magic vehicle bearing No. OR 19L 2574 ,they have  seized and  sold  the  vehicle by  performing  all required  paraphernalia   and  formalities of law. According to the opp.parties, despite repeated requests and reminders  the  complainant failed  and  neglected to pay the over  due  loan installments as per the loan agreement, for which  they  were forced to seize and sale the  vehicle.

4.       In view of the rival  pleadings of the parties  the following issues  arise  for consideration:-

: I S S U E S :

1. Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties and the case is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant has sustained inconvenience loss, damage, mental agony and harassment due to prematured seizure and sale of the vehicle  before EMIs payment period  was over ? 
3. To what other reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Issue No.(i):-  Admittedly the complainant had  taken a loan of  Rs. 2,65,500.00 from the opp.parties   to  purchase the TATA Magic vehicle bearing No. OR 19L 2574 and making  repayment in installments. Since the petitioner was paying installment dues, he is definitely a consumer and the opp.parties being the financers are the  service  providers.

                    The petitioner has filed this case, claiming that the opp.parties haveseized and soldhisvehicle before time without any rhyme and reason, for which he has filed thiscase, so the case ismaintainable.

Issue No.(ii):-Admittedly on 7.11.2014 the opp.parties have seized  the TATA Magic vehicle bearing No. OR 19L 2574 of the petitioner, demanding default  arrear payment. The opp.parties have  filed  certain documents like E-authorization letter to  repossess the  vehicle of the  complainant  to the authorized agent (Anx-6),Pre seizure intimation to police (Anx-7),post seizure intimation to  police (Anx-8),Pre-sale letter to the customer/petitioner (Anx-10),E-auction quotation (Anx-11),payment receipt by the purchaser (Anx-13) ,sale acceptance letter of the  opp.parties (Anx-14) and  release order of the  vehicle by the opp.parties in favour of Anata Sahu/purchaser(Anx- 15),which reveals  that the  vehicle had already been seized and sold by the opp.parties before getting  the  order, for which order could not be  passed  to release the  vehicle in favour of the  complainant.

                   However, the inventory report of thevehicle (Anx-5)does not bearthe signature of thecomplainant. When the vehicle was repossedfrom the possession of thecomplainant and for all purpose theinventory report isaseizurelist, then why the signature of thecomplainant was notobtained in that report. It makesuspicion.

                  The complainant has filed the statement of accountsgranted by the opp.partieswhich reveals that till 19.11.2014 the complaint hasrefunded Rs. 2,66,548.00 onlyi.e more than the loan amount. The EMIs periodwas continuingupto February,2015i.efourEMIs were yetto bepaid. According to the EMIs thelastfour EMIswereabout Rs.32,000.00. Thus thecomplainanthadalreadydeposited Rs. 2,66,548.00inusual basis andhecould have deposited Rs. 32,000.00 during the coming 4 months. Thestatementfurther reveals that on 5.11.2014 i.eon thepreviousdate of seizureof thevehicle thecomplainant has depositedRs. 4,000.00with the opp.parties. .When thecomplainant wasdepositing the cash andhehad alreadydepositedmore than theloan amount and restfour EMIsperiodwascontinuing upto February,2015,itwasnotnecessaryto seizethe vehiclehorridly. Thedocumentsfiled by the opp.partiesshow thaton 7.11.2014the agent wasauthorized to repossess the vehicle, on that datethepre-intimation and post intimation lettershave been sent to police and on that datepublicinventory of thevehicle was done. On the seizure listthe signature of thecomplainant has not been obtained. Thisshows thevindictivenessof the opp.parties in repossessing thevehicle.

                Though pre-sale noticewasgiven to the complainant on 8.11.l2014butno intimation has been issued to him to takepart in theauctionor to remain presentduringtheauction time. The petitioner’slearnedcounselsubmitted that the value of thevehicle was much more than the auctionprice of Rs. 65,000.00and keepingthecomplainantin dark and inhasty manner and cunningly the opp.parties sold the vehicle in lessor price. Thus, when thecomplainanthad alreadypaid Rs.2,66,548.00 asagainstloan amountofRs. 2,65,500.00 andfourinstallmentswere yet to bepaid,selling thevehicle horridly and withoutintimating thepetitioner to take part in auction isillegal arbitrary andagainst the principles of naturaljustice. So thepleaof thepetitionerthatdue toimmatureand illegal sale of the vehicle, he has suffered inconvenience loss ,damaged, mental agonyand harassmentis accepted and theopp.parties should be directed to compensate the complainant for thesame asprayed forby him. Itisfurtherfoundfrom the case record that the opp.parties haveserved noticevide No. JAN’15/866 Dt. January 21^st 2015 to thecomplainant ,demanding Rs. 56,570.00only after theauctionof thevehicle . Since itappears thatthe opp.parties have soldthevehicle illegally andagainst natural justice, they should not be allowed to demandanymorefrom thecomplainanttowardsloan amount.

Issue No.(iii):-  In view of the  discussion made above  in issue No.(ii) the petitioner is  entitled to get Rs. 50,000.00 towards inconvenience loss , damaged, harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000.00 towards cost of  litigation. The opp.parties cannot demand anything more from the complainant towards the loan.

5. Hence ordered :- 

O R D E R

                     The case isdisposed of on contest by the parties. The opp.parties aredirected to pay Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand)only to thecomplainanttowards inconvenience loss , damage, harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand)towards cost oflitigationwithin 45(Forty-Five) daysof thisorder. It is further directedthat the opp.partiesshall notclaimanythingfrom thecomplainant towards arrearloanamount. It ismade clear thatin case ofany deviation of this orderby the opp.parties. they should pay interest @12% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the 46^th day i.e from10^th September 2017 till actual paymentis made as because they were takingmore than @12% interestfrom thecomplainantin theloan account.