The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the General Manager, Konark Equipment Sales & Service, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.2 is the Collection Manager of H.D.B Financial Service Ltd., Bhubaneswar. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood availed financial assistance from the O.Ps to purchase a J.C.B vide loan account No.1816093, dtd.17.09.2016 executing an agreement thereof to be repaid within the year 2020, where the Complainant paid E.M.I amount regularly. According to the said agreement, finance amount is Rs.19.60 lacs (Rupees Nineteen lacs sixty thousand) only and margin money is Rs.3.90 lacs (Rupees three lacs ninety thousand) only, out of which Rs.2.00 lacs (Rupees two lacs) only paid through account transfer from the account of the Complainant and Rs.1.90 lacs (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand) only is paid by hand and the vehicle was registered accordingly. But, the O.P No.1 failed to deliver registration certificate, money receipt of Rs.1.90 lacs (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand) only and repayment schedule chart to the Complainant, while the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 on 18.10.2016 to collect the same documents and lastly on 27.12.2016, the O.P No.1 denied to provide the relevant documents rather threatened the Complainant to seize the vehicle. Due to non-supply of repayment schedule by O.P No.1, the Complainant has not paid monthly instalment. The O.Ps came to the house of the Complainant on 02.01.2017 and tried to seize the said vehicle forcibly, but they didn't succeed in their attempt, thereby the O.Ps without complying their duties, deliberately put the Complainant into mental agony, harassment and financial loss, thus the Complainant has filed this case for necessary relief. The Complainant has prayed to hand over relevant documents i.e. R.C book, money receipt and loan agreement along with compensation.

                    3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. Moreover, the written version disclosing that the O.P No.1 being a dealer has issued retail invoice in the name of the Complainant for Rs.24.50 lacs (Rupees twenty four lacs fifty thousand) only under hypothecation with O.P No.2 on 17.09.2016, the O.P No.1 has also issued Form No.21 (sale certificate), Form No.22 (initial certificate of road worthiness) and also has given a cash discount of Rs.2.15 lacs (Rupees two lacs fifteen thousand) only to the Complainant. The O.P No.1 has also commissioned all such details of the vehicle on 20.09.2016 and handed over the warranty registration coupon on 22.09.2016 to the Complainant. Temporary registration certificate for one month issued by R.T.O, Bhubaneswar is also handed over to the Complainant and this O.P No.1 has given utmost service to the Complainant. So, the O.P No.1 is not coming under any formula of deficiency-in-service. Copy of all above referred documents/ items are annexed herewith and the O.P No.1 has no role in this case. The Advocate for O.P No.1 remained absent and did not take part in hearing of this case.

                    4. Written version filed by O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. Further, written version filed disclosing that the relationship between the Complainant and the O.P No.2 is that of borrower and lender, as such no consumer dispute arises. This being a contractual relationship is essentially a civil dispute, so the complaint is not maintainable and the same will have to be referred to Arbitration in terms of Article-31 of the loan agreement, filed along with the written version. Moreover, the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.19.60 lacs (Rupees Nineteen lacs sixty thousand) only from O.P No.2 to purchase a construction equipment case 770 loader backhoe machine vide loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.1816093, dtd.17.09.2016, wherein the Complainant agreed upon all the terms and conditions of the agreement and also agreeing to repay the loan amount along with finance charges to be repayable in 46 monthly instalments @ Rs.54,710/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand seven hundred ten) only and accordingly, the O.P No.2 disbursed the sanction amount directly to the O.P No.1 and the Complainant took delivery of the machine directly from the O.P No.1 after depositing the differential cost of the machinery being the down payment. The only business of this O.P is to advance loan and collect the same along with interest and charges. Loan details  is already supplied to the Complainant. The loan was disbursed on 28.09.2016, where 1st instalment of loan repayment to be commenced from 04.12.2016. According to statement of accounts, it is clearly visualised that the vehicle was not registered and the Complainant has not paid any single amount in account of O.P No.2 and the cheques, which were given by the Complainant were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, which clearly indicated that the Complainant was not in a mind to clear the dues in order to come out from this dispute, rather dishonestly filed this case. In the mean while, the Arbitration was also started and the Hon’ble Civil Court, Kolkata ordered of appointing receiver U/s.17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?          

                    6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that he has paid Rs.1.90 lacs (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand) only by hand to O.P No.1, who failed to hand over the registration certificate and money receipt to the Complainant. Due to non-supply of repayment schedule by the O.P No.1, the Complainant has not paid his monthly instalments. Then, O.Ps tried to seize the vehicle, but failed. So, the Complainant has filed this case in the forum praying to direct the O.Ps to handover R.C book, money receipt and loan agreement along with compensation. On the other hand, the Advocate for O.P No.1 was absent at the time of hearing of this case, but his pleading has been mentioned in para-3 supra. It has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.2 that the Complainant has been delivered the machine directly from the O.P No.1 after depositing the differential cost of the machinery being the down payment. The duty of this O.P is to advance loan and collect the same along with interest and charges. Loan details are already supplied to the Complainant. The vehicle was not registered, which was disclosed from the account statement and the Complainant has not paid any single amount to O.P No.2 towards loan. The cheques, which were given by the Complainant were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. So, the Arbitration has already started and the order was passed by Hon’ble City Civil Court, Calcutta in the Misc. case No.1121 of 2017, which is available in the case record. So, it is the duty of the Complainant to make his vehicle registered. But, he is silent to prove regarding registration of the said vehicle and he is also silent to prove regarding payment of Rs.1.90 lacs (Rupees one lakh ninety thousand) only by hand. So, according to settled principle of law, in case of loan, if the repayments are not received as per the scheduled time frame, it will disturb the equilibrium of the financial arrangements of the Corporations. They do not have at their disposal unlimited funds. They have to cater to the needs of the intended borrowers with the available finance. Non-payment of the installment by a defaulter may stand on the way of a deserving borrower getting financial assistance. It has been further argued by the O.P No.2 that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. But, it is the duty of O.P No.2 to serve a copy of loan agreement to the Complainant. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that no such copy of loan agreement has been given to him.   

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the O.P No.2 to supply the copy of loan agreement and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-     

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.1 and the case is allowed in part on contest against O.P No.2 with cost. The O.P No.2 is directed to supply the copy of loan agreement and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P No.2 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.P No.2 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 16th day of October, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.