Brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a registered owner of a Passenger Tempo bearing registration No. OD09E7171. The said complainant availed a loan from Ops on hypothecation Vide Contact No.ORBABL00115 dated 30.11.2015. The complainant was paying the installments regularly. That, on dtd.30.12.2017 the Complainant received a letter from Op1 to make payment of Rs.21,827/- within 3 days. On dtd. 02.01.2018 the goondas of Op1 seized the vehicle due to nonpayment of aforesaid amount. For the said illegal activities of Ops the complainant lost his income so also unable to maintain his family. The value of the case is Rs.2,07,500/- For such arbitrary action of Ops the complainant filed this case praying to release the vehicle and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for cost of litigation.
The complainant relied on the following documents
- Photocopy of delivery challan.
- Photocopy of Permit.
- Photocopy of Insurance Certificate.
- Photocopy of Fitness.
- Photocopy of R.C Book.
On the above complain the case is admitted and notice issued to Ops for appearance and filing of w/v. The Ops appeared and filed their written version. The learned advocate for Ops submitted in the written version that the case is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer and the relation between the Complainant and Ops that of borrower and lender and the complainant has not came to the commission in clean hands. She cited a decision of Hon’ble SCDRC, Odisha that when a repossession of vehicle is done following breach of loan agreement terms, it doesn’t amount to deficiency in service.Till February 2018 the total outstanding amount is Rs.47,946/- till repossession. The complainant has not paid the EMIs for which the vehicle was seized and the vehicle is already disposed of on dt.01.02.2018 through online auction. Now after disposal of vehicle till 05 April 2018 the outstanding amount is Rs.95,874/-. So Op prays to dismiss the case. The Ops has not filed any documents.
On the above pleadings the following issues are framed and decide the case
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
All the issues are inter linked with each other so they are discussed jointly. It is a fact that the complainant has hypothecated a loan from Ops to purchase a passenger tempo to earn his livelihood and the said vehicle was registered with RTO,Keonjhar and duly insured. So he is a consumer.Therewas an arbitration agreement between the parties as per agreement the complainant is a borrower and the Op is a debtor. The relationship between debtor and creditor is beyond the preview of Consumer Protection Act [2007(1) OLR (CSR) 35, State CDR, Commission, Odisha.] The vehicle has been repossess by Ops on Feb.2018 due to nonpayment of EMIs and the said vehicle is disposed of on dt.01.02.2018 through online auction. This case is not maintainable in this commission so this commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in this case. So the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit and the Ops has not made any deficiency of service. So there is no cause of action arises. Hence Order.
ORDER
The complain case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.
