C.C. No.86/2022

Dibyajyoti Swain,

S/o. Prafulla Kumar Swain,

Vill.- Basantpur,

P.O.- Taradapada,

P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.                                     ……………. Complainant

                           (Versus)

1. Branch Manager,

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. (AF),

Kalpana Area, Bhubaneswar.

2. Manager, KTM Show Room,

Press Chhak, Gajapati Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Dist.- Khurda.…..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. D.N. Acharya, Advocate

For O.P. No.1………..Mr. S.K. Naik, Advocate

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                    JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed the consumer complaint U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking not to sale/transfer the vehicle motorcycle KTM Duke 125 ABC Model 00JP98 bearing Regd. No.OD-02-BQ-4790 and to release the vehicle in favour of complainant and pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-.

            Complainant took loan of Rs.1,50,000/- on 12.02.2021 to repay in 39 monthly EMI @ Rs.4,056/- commencing from 06.3.2021 to 06.02.2024. Complainant failed to pay and violated the agreement for which notice to complainant was issued to repay on failure to pay the vehicle was repossessed on 17.11.2021. Presale notice was issued on 01.12.2021 and after post sale another notice was issued on 21.01.2022 to repay the rest amount of Rs.71,009/- and there after the complainant has filed the consumer complaint seeking aforesaid relief.

            Complainant has alleged to have been contact with one Satya Nayak, who alleged to be an agent of opposite party No.1 sitting in the premises of opposite party No.2 and persuaded complainant to purchase the vehicle but he is not a party in this case for which we cannot give any findings on the said Satya Nayak without giving him any opportunity of being heard.

            Complainant was in default of paying EMI is not disputed by the complainant and prior to filing of consumer complaint the vehicle was repossessed, presale notice was issued, vehicle was auctioned and complainant was asked to pay the rest amount.

            There is not a single correspondence from complainant to repay the amount and admittedly default in paying the EMI and as to how there is unfair trade practice by opposite parties has not been described in the consumer complaint. We therefore find no merit in the consumer complaint and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 15^th Dec.,2023.