MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT :-
Complainant has filed C.C.Case No. 200/2023 U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking to release the seizure vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-BA-89777(Truck) and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
Brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that Complainant is a defaulter of 6 EMI installments of Rs, 1,75,000/- in respect of vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-05-BA-89777(Truck) which was seized by Ops on dt. 22.09.2022, which is illegal as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. The complainant apprehended that the vehicle might have be sold to the other person, may be mishandled for which he may sustained financial loss and the complainant also apprehended that the cheque may be misutillized. The vehicle of Complainant was already sold to the 3rd party on dt. 31.01.22 is illegal as per the Sec-51(5) of M.V.Act and vehicle was still in the name of the Complainant preferred WP(c ) No. 29678/2023 and Hon’ble High Court disposed of the WP( c) on the ground that the vehicle was already sold, but this is not compliance of Sec-51(5) of MV Act and vehicle was not yet been transfer in the financier name for which vehicle be released in favour of this complainant and sought relief of Rs. 2 Lakhs.
The Ld. Adv. for Ops have appeared and filed their written version stating that:-
“ Complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 3,674,221/- to purchase a commercial vehicle TATA LPT 4225 BSLV bearing Regd. No. OD 05 BA 8777 with executed an agreement vide loan A/C No. 85092052 and the total loan amount has to be paid in 66 installments starting from 10.03.2021 to 10.08.2026 with an EMI of Rs. 82,774/-. Complainant is a defaulter from the first EMI in the month of Mar-21 which is evident from the statement of account dt. 02.01.24 and till 22.09.2022 an amount of Rs. 537,816/- was pending towards outstanding dues.
The Complainant has been chronic defaulter throughout the loan period and due to default in payment of EMIs the Op Bank issue loan recall notice on 26.05.2022 to foreclose the loan by making payment of Rs. 37,16,677/- within 7 days from the date of issuance of the said LRN and it was also warned that in the event of failure towards compliance of the said notice the Bank would repossess the vehicle. Complainant failed to make payment as per the loan recall notice dt. 26.05.2022 the Op Bank took over the possession of the vehicle on dt. 22.09.2022 with due procedure of law and prior to the repossession pre and post intimation letter was given to the Manchewar Police station.
That after repossession of the asset vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD 05 BA 8777 the Op Bank issue pre-sale notice on dt. 23.09.2022 as a final chance and it was asked to pay Rs. 38,15,008.29 on or before 8.10.2022 and it was categorically mentioned that in the event of failure to make the payment the vehicle would be put into auction without any further notice and accordingly the Op Bank auctioned the vehicle and sold the same on dt. 31.10.2022 for a consideration amount further an amount of Rs. 16,29,713.17 fell shortage. It is noteworthy to mention that the pre-sale notice was given on 22-09.2022 and amount of Rs. 38,15,008.29 was demanded within 08.10.2022, but the complainant did not comply the same. Hence it is crystal clear that the Op Bank waited till 31.10.2022 and then sold the asset to the third party/auction purchases & then in Dec-23 the complaint case was filed which is not maintainable. Further Complainant had filed a Writ application before Hon’ble High Court, Orissa vide W.P(c) No.29678/22 for release of the vehicle and the complainant had suppressed the fact that vehicle had been sold for which the Hon’ble Court had passed order 22-11.22 to release the asset by taking 50% of the outstanding of, But later on the Op Bank brought the same into the knowledge of Hon’ble Court and finally the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ application on 19.04.2023.
The Complainant is a defaulter of loan. The relation between complainant & Ops are that of Debtor & Creditor and there is no deficiency in service. Not following Rule-51(5) is not deficiency in service but violation of M.V.Act for which Complainant can approach appropriate authority/Court for appropriate relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. After sale of the vehicle the Op Bank has issued post-sale notice on 31.10.22 and demanded the short fall amount in the said post-sale notice and while dismissing the C.C., we direct the Ops to default 2/3rd of ODI and settle the claim as the vehicle of complainant has been auctioned.
We find no merit in the C.C. and accordingly the C.C.Case No. 200/2023 is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties concerned.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 24th day of July,2024
I, agree
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
