1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he is the owner of Bolero vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-10-B-0144 which was refinanced by the O.P. for Rs. 3,60,000/- whereas cost of the vehicle is Rs. 5,50,000/- and instalment is Rs. 15,150/-, using the said vehicle for earning of livelihood by means of self employment.  It is alleged he had 3 numbers of due toward installments and on first week of June, 2018confirmed with the O.P. seeking times to deposit the said installments.  It is alleged that on 06.06.2018 while the vehicle was proceeding towards Koraput, the O.P. seized alleged vehicle with the help of his muscle powers and kept the vehicle in the open space exposing to sun, air and rain and on contact to the O.P.they did not bother his words.It is further alleged that on 11.06.2018, the O.P. sent a letter alongwith a statement of account demanding all the installments dues against the alleged vehicle or to sale the vehicle to recover their pending financed amount and also charged Rs. 9000/- towards repossession of the alleged vehicle.It is also alleged that no prior notice for seizing the vehicle was issued by the O.P.Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. not to sale the vehicle and to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2. The O.P. appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed their counter version admitting the refinance made by them against the alleged vehicle, have denied the allegations of the complainant contending that there was outstanding dues to be recovered from the complainant against the finance made by them for the alleged vehicle.  Further they have contended that on many occasions they have issued letters to the complainant stating that to deposit the outstanding dues and the complainant himself has surrendered his vehicle before the O.P.  Further on the basis of terms and conditions of the finance system, showing their no liability, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them. 
    
3. Complainant has filed certain documents to prove his allegations, whereas the O.P. did not choose to file any single documents to prove their contentions inspite of repeated adjournments given to them.  Hence the documents filed by the complainant remain unchallenged and unrebuttal.  Heard from the parties at length and perused the material documents available in the record.
    
4. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding refinance of the alleged vehicle.  It is also not disputed one that complainant is defaulter in payment of installment for last quarter prior to seizing of vehicle.  It is also not disputed that the O.P. has seized the vehicle near Jeypore while the said vehicle was proceeding towards Koraput.  The allegations of complainant is that though there was an oral settlement between both the parties to clear of the pending installment dues, but without any prior notice, the O.P. has forcibly seized the alleged vehicle.  Whereas the O.P. has contended that they have seized the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the finance system and also they have intimated the complainant on many occasion regarding clear of the dues to them. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties and ascertained that complainant has filed documents in support of his submissions, whereas the O.P. have not filed any single documents in support of their contentions.As such, we direct the O.P. to submit their relevant documents to prove their submissions regarding the fact that they have intimated the complainant to clear of his dues on many occasions, but inspite of several opportunities, they could not able to produce any documents to prove their contentions, as such the versions of O.P. cannot be believable from any angle.Without any cogent evidence, the plea of O.P. will not do and the same makes the submissions of complainant strong and vital.As such, we feel the O.P. without issuing any prior notice or any intimation have forcefully seized the alleged vehicle in dispute, which is not accordance and also not permissible as per law and the said act of the O.P. clearly proves the principle of deficiency in service on their part.As such, the charges levied towards the repossessing the alleged vehicle for Rs. 9,000/- is also illegal since there is no evidence of expense to that effect and without any evidence, the ples of O.P. towards expense of Rs. 9,000/- is not maintainable.In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of National Commission in the case between M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. ltd Vrs Surekha Khanoji Khemnar, wherein it is held that “ if a financier by using his muscle power takes away the vehicle and does not want to return it even on deposit of claimed unpaid amount, it would  just mean exploitation of the poor consumer and interim direction of Consumer Forum to return the vehicle is just and equitable”. 
    
5. Further, it is also admitted fact that the complainant is a loan defaulter under the O.P. and as on filing of the case he has an outstanding dues i.e. AFC due of Rs. 34,423/- and future balance of Rs. 45,450/- and in total he has outstanding balance of Rs. 79,873/- as on date of filing of the present case.  Further the submission of O.P. is that only to recover their dues from the complainant, they have seized the vehicle as per terms of loan agreement made between them.  So, we feel, the O.P. has every right to seize the vehicle only to recover their dues.  In this connection we have also fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case between Surya Pal Singh Vrs Siddha Vinayak Motors, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that “Under hire purchase agreement, it was the financier who was the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retains the vehicle only as bailee / trustee.  Taking possession of vehicle on ground of non-payment of instalment is legal right of the financier.  Court below had committed error in granting compensation to petition.  Order set aside.”
    
6. From the forgoing observation and on the basis of verdicts of higher Forums, we feel, both the parties have fault at their own end.  Hence both the parties are having co-lateral liabilities towards each others.  Hence this order.

ORDER

        Considering the above facts and circumstances, the complainant is herewith directed to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs. 79,873/- in two instalments to the O.P.  Further, the O.P. is also herewith directed to hand over the alleged vehicle to the complainant in such conditions as it was at the time of seizing, whenever the complainant clear of his dues, with immediate effect alongwith the No Objection Certificate towards clearance of their financed amount.  All the directions should be complied within 45 days from the date of this order.

No order for costs and compensation to either party. Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4^th day of February, 2019.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.