Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            The  complainant  has filed the  present  complaint under  U/s. 12  of C.P.Act,1986.

2.       Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she has  purchased  a 2^nd  hand  vehicle  bearing Regd. No. OR 19F 1613  by availing  finance   from  the  opp.parties  to earn  her livelihood. After receiving  all the  required  documents from the  complainant, the  opp.parties  sanctioned an amount  of Rs.5,50,000.00 in favour  of the  complainant  for  purchase  of the  old  vehicle  on  07.11.2012. On the  date  of   disbursement  of the  loan amount the opp.parties have not  supplied  the  copy of the  loan  agreement, loan sanctioned  letter, form   or  money receipts  charged  for the documents etc. to the  complainant. Annexure-1 is the photo copy of the registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The loan amount was Rs.5,50,000.00, finance  charge  of Rs.2,16,972.00  ( interest)  which was  1^st  due  from  20.12.2012 to 20.12.2015  through EMIs, Annexure-2  is the photo  copy  of  the  summary  of loan and  statement  of   account. The  complainant  has to pay Rs.7,66,972.00 in 37 numbers of  monthly EMIs. The  1^st Emi was  fixed at Rs.24,904.00  and  from 2^nd EMI to 36  numbers, it  was  fixed at Rs.20,613.00 as  per the  repayment  schedule  .Annexure- 3  is  the  photo copy  of the repayment  schedule. The  complainant  paid  an amount of Rs.2,80,800.00 by 30 numbers   of  EMIs till December, 2013. Due  to strike  in iron and   coal  mines  sector  and  non-receipt  of the bills  from the  transporters the  complainant could  not  able  to repay the  further EMIs  from the  month of January,2014. So  complainant  against approached the opp.party  to refinance  the  said  vehicle  again  to adjust  the arrear EMIs  along  with total balance loan amount pending  for repayment. The  opp.parties accepted the request  made by the  complainant and  accordingly on 22.05.2014 an amount of Rs.5,10,000.00 was  sanctioned  in favour of the  complainant. The  opp.parties  again  calculated the  interest as Rs.2,24,196.00 and the  total amount  to  be repaid  by the  complainant was Rs.7,34,196.00 . The said  amount was to be   repaid in 37 numbers of   monthly EMIs. The  first EMI was fixed at Rs.24,276.00 and the rest 36 EMIs were fixed at Rs.19,720.00 which should commence from  05.07.2014 to 05.07.2017. The  said  amount  is  till  not  adjusted  previous loan EMIs   or  paid in favour of the  complainant’s bank account. The  complainant in several occasion approached  the  opp.parties to adjust the  loan amount to  previous loan amount  and  to return  the balance  and supply a statement  of  account in her favour. The  opp.parties  did not  supply the  same. The  complainant  started repayment of EMIs  for  the  2^nd  loan till date. The  complainant has  successfully paid  an amount of Rs.2,23,150 to the opp.parties  in  between the  05.07.2014  to 02.02.2017. Till filing of the  case the  complainant has  repaid  an amount of  Rs.5,03,950.00  to the opp.parties  (Rs.2,80,800.00 + Rs.2,23,150.00). After  contacting  the  opp.parties through toll free number  and cell  phone at last  on 02.02.2017 after  lapse of  more than 32 months the opp.parties  supplied  a  loan statement  of  account and repayment schedule  in favour of the  complainant  and  demanded the repayment of the  total balance  arrear  loan amount  at a time. Annexure- 4 & 5  are the  photo copy of the statement of the  account and  repayment  schedule. From the  aforesaid  documents the  complainant  came  to know   that the opp.parties after refinance the  loan  amount on 22.05.2014  have not  adjusted the  balance   arrear  EMIs  amount  and the  balance  loan amount and the  interest of the  previous  loan account  . The  complainant  immediately informed the opp.parties  about  their  wrong  calculation  and request  for  correction  for  statement  of  loan account  after adjustment of  the total arrear EMIs and balance loan amount,  refund to the  complainant. Instead of  correction of the  outstanding  dues, statement  of  account and  repayment schedule,  the opp.parties are  demanding  an amount of Rs.8,00,000.00 from the  complainant  at a  time and  threatened to seize the  vehicle  within a  week. Hence this case.

3.       Notices were issued to  both the opp.parties through  Regd. post with  A.D. Notice to  opp.party No.1  returned with  a  postal endorsement  “refused”. So  notice   on opp.party No.1 is sufficient. Notice on opp.party No.2 has been served and the  A.D  available  in the  case  record. The opp.parties filed a joint  written statement being   signed by the   authorised signatory  for the opp.parties.

4.       The  case of the opp.parties is that the  complainant  is  not  a consumer. There is no deficiency in service provided by the opp.parties. The  complainant is   using the  vehicle  for  commercial purpose. There is  no material  placed by the  complainant  that she  is leaving  from  the  earning  of the  vehicle  through self-employment. In view of  Arbitration Clause-6  this Forum/Commission  has no  jurisdiction  to  decide the  lies  raised by the  complainant. The  complainant  has   suppressed the material facts. The  complainant has  requested  the opp.parties for  financial support  towards  the  vehicle and  accordingly  the opp.party No.1  sanctioned  a loan of Rs.5,50,000.00 after execution of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No. ANGULO211070001 dtd. 07.11.2012. In view of  such agreement  the  complainant  was to  pay Rs.7,66,972.00 in 37 monthly instalments commencing from 2012.2012 20.12.2015. As per the  repayment   structure the  first instalment was fixed  at Rs.24,904.00 and  all other  instalments  from 2^nd  to 36 were fixed at Rs.20,617.00 .The complainant  also  availed WCL insurance  loan   on 24.01.2013 to the  tune of  Rs.19,441.00 and Rs.30,268.00  on  27.01.2014 along with   interest. She  was  liable to pay an amount  of  Rs.67,068.00  only  for t he  aforesaid  loans. The total  amount to  be repaid   by the  complainant  was Rs.8,34,040.00  only. The  complainant  was  a defaulter and  deviated the  financial discipline  and   also the  terms and   contract. The  opp.parties  have received an amount of  Rs.2,85,950.00   till 20.054.2014 out of  which Rs.33,420.00  was recovered  towards 1^st  ECL (insurance  loan) and Rs.11,260.00  to wards 2^nd WCL (insurance loan). The  balance  some  of Rs.2,31,314.00  was  realised towards the vehicle  loan .So as  on 20.05.2014  the  complainant  was to pay  a  sum of  Rs.8,16,702.00. As the complainant  could not  clear-up the  out standing   dues  under the  agreement  dtd.07.11.2012 ,she requested the opp.party No.1  on writing  on 20.05.2014  for re-agreement /restructure  of the  amount  which was  considered and  approved by the  financer. Accordingly a sum of  Rs.5,10,000.00  was sanctioned  in favour of the  complainant and  the  loan agreement  bearing No. ANGULO405200004 was executed  on 22.05.2014 where  the  sum payable  by the  complainant  was  Rs.7,34,196.00  in 37  monthly instalments  commencing   from 05.07.2014  to 05.07.2017 .As  per the  re-payment  schedule  the   1^st instalment  was  Rs.24,276.00  and  2^nd   to 36 instalments were Rs.19,720.00  per  month. Besides the  vehicle  loss, the  vehicle  in question was also insured  by the  opp.parties-financer  for  two  consecutive  terms i.e on  27.01.2015  Rs.31,538.00 and on 27.01.2016  for   Rs.31,990.00  together with  interest. The  complainant  was   liable to pay Rs.70,788.00 towards the  aforesaid  due. Thus the  total amount  payable  by  the complainant  during  contract tenure   was Rs.8,04,984.00 . The statement  of  account as on 31.08.2017 reveals that a sum of Rs.2,23,150.00  only has been received from the complainant  against  receivable  amount Rs.12,17,437.00. The amount   due on the  complainant  is  Rs.9,94,287.00. The relief  asked by the  complainant i.e not  to  seize  the vehicle   as   infructuous  as  the  vehicle  has already been   seized on 26.04.2017. The  complainant has closed the  1^st  agreement  by   opting  for  the  2^nd  agreement. So the payment  made under  2^nd agreement  can not  be  adjusted  for  the  1^st  agreement. The tenure  of the agreement dtd. 22.05.2014  is completed  on 05.07.2017  and  there   is  a huge  amount  due on the   complainant as appears  from  Annexure- C/1. The  complaint filed by the  complainant   is  not  having  any merit, may be  dismissed as there is  no deficiency in  service on the part of the  opp.parties.

5.       Admittedly  the complainant  has   purchased  a  vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR- 19F 1613 by availing  finance  from the  institution of the opp.parties/ The vehicle  was  purchased  for earning  of  livelihood  by  the  complainant.  The opp.parties  failed to  produce any evidence that the  complainant  has  purchased the vehicle  for  commercial purpose i.e  to earn  profit. So it is  clear  from the  materials from  the record that the  complainant had  purchased  the  2^nd  hand  vehicle  for  earning  her livelihood.  It is  also admitted that the  1^st loan  was availed by executing loan agreement No.ANGULO211070001 dtd.07.11.2012. It is also  clear  from the materials   on record that  as the  complainant  failed to repay the loan  through  regular instalments, she  approached the opp.parties  for refinance  and on the request of the complainant the  opp.parties  agreed  to refinance the  vehicle of the  complainant. Thereafter, an agreement  was  entered in between the  complainant  and   the opp.parties on 22.05.2014 bearing No. ANGULO405200004 and  loan was  disbursed  to the  complainant. The  complainant  has  filed   a lots of  documents  in favour of her  claim, where  as the  opp.parties  have also   relied on the  documents  available  with them.

6.       On perusal   of the  pleading of the   parties and the  documents  filed by  them, we found  that  there  is  no deficiency in service   on the  part of the opp.parties. The  opp.parties have  claimed  the  out standing  dues  from the  complainant  according to the  loan agreement  executed by the complainant  in  both the   occasions. When   demand is  as per the  agreements   executed  by the  complainant, now  she  can not  challenge the  terms  and  conditions of  such agreement. There  is  no  deficiency in service by the opp.parties at all.

7.       Hence  order :-

: O R D E R :

           The  case be  and the  same is  dismissed on contest  against the opp.parties.