As per direction of the hon’ble scdrc,odisha cuttack vide its letter no 3078 dot 3.12.10 the case is taken up by us and the present president not participated in this case as he was holding power for the complaint prior to appointment as president is this forum and we dispose is the matter on merit.
This is a complainant for a direction to ops to release the alleged vehicle is the complainant bearing registration no OR-09-E-6826 on receipt is rs 84,846 towards back installments from sept 06 to dec and to pay a sum is Rs 2,33,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and finical loss and cost of litigation and in failure direction be given to returned rs 4,99,820/-for the loss sustained by the complainant as due to illegal seizure of the complainants vehicle.
The case is the complainant in brief is that the official of Ops finance company have seized the vehicle is the complainant bearing regd no OR-09-E-6826 on dot 09.12.06 without servicing is any prior notice and by means is force engaging musele man from the possession is the driver of the vehicle demanded the entire future installments through this complainant is not liable for those payments on this complainant is only defaulted 4 installments till illegal seizure is the vehicle and hence this complainant along with a petition m/s 13(3B) of C.P Act for on interim order to release the alleged vehicle pending disposal of original case.
In support filed Xerox copy of R.C Book, Amortization schedule, payment receipts from jan-5 to August 6,seizure list, Xerox copy of travel association letter no nil dot 2.9.06 transit pass statement of account dot 15.12.05.
After service of notice O.Ps filed written version jointly stating that the case is not maintainable on the complainant on the complainant is not a consumer under the provision is C.P Act and this court has no terrifically jurisdiction to entertain any absent is arising out of the hire perchance agreement made between the parties A post from said vehicle has not merit for livelihood. So the transaction comes under commercial purpose and on the agreement permit the financier to take possession is its financed property i.e the alleged vehicle and there is no legal impediments on such passion on taken and hence, these ops are acted as per agreements and no way deficient in service and prayed to dismiss the case with costs.
Perused the materials available on records. It is not dispute that the complainant had purchased the vehicle taking a loan is Rs 6,45,800 after execute on ly potacation agreement with the Ops on dot 29.10.04 and agreed to pay the said loan by way is 36 installments Rs 21,219/- each per month and if is also not dispute that due to default is the Emi and it is also not dispute that due to default is the EMI and the Ops have taken possession is the vehicle on receipt is the order amount of Rs 84,876/-with repo charges and further the complainant fails to prove the forcible possession of the alleged vehicle and the Ops have acted as per agreement and taken possession as the complainant was defaulted the EMI’s of the Ops.
On this back drop when the complainant was avoiding to the EMI’s is Ops the Hon’ble apex court has specifically taken a view in (oriz auto financial india ltd ,ch 10.2.06) that if agreement permit the financier to take possessions if the vehicle there is no legal impeachment on such possession being taken. Of course the hirer can available. But that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that hirer is relying upon the decision is the hon’ble Apex court and considering upon and circumstance we do not found any negligence of the Ops which can be named as deficiency is service and liable for any complainant and accordingly having no merit the case is dismissed but without costs.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
