Brief fact of this case is that, the complainant purchased a Motor Cycle Passion Pro from Pradhan Motors at Pallhara with a financed amount of Rs.63,098/- financed by Hero Fincorp Ltd. to be recovered in 24 instalments @3312/- monthly instalment starting from 07.11.2020 to 08.11.2022. The vehicle was later insured and got registration before the RTA,Talcher by the said show room on 05.11.2020 and after that the dealer handedover the motor cycle to the complainant. The complainant went on repaying the EMI @Rs.3313/- per month starting from 07.11.2020 to 08.11.2022 and the last payment was made on 14.11.2022and all the payment have been made through online. The OP finance company sent some antisocial persons who has forcibly repossessed the alleged motor cycle of the complainant bearing No.OD35 E3848 at Belda Ghati while one of his friend namely Biswajit Behera was riding the said motor cycle on 18.05.2023. During seizure, no seizure list was provided to the person from whom the vehicle was seized and not even intimated about the seizure to the complainant.As such on 19.5.2023 said Biswajit Behera lodged one FIR before the Sadar Police station. The vehicle of the complainant has been illegally seized without prior notice and not even giving respect o the judgement of Hon’ble  Apex Court regarding guideline for repossession of Hypothecated assets. After getting information from his friend the complainant enquired into the matter and able to knew that the said motor cycle is standing in the stock yard of OP.No.3. When the complainant met the owner of the stock yard who disclosed that the alleged motor cycle has been seized by the financer. The complainant contacted over telephone to the finance company who replied evasively and demanded a high amount of Rs.10,000/- which is lying outstanding against him towards EMI,OD and cheque bouncing charges etc reflected in the last sheet of payment schedule. That the complainant has already been paid Rs.1,52,402.31 against Rs.1,68,963/- as shown in the last page of payment schedule provided by the OP finance company and in front page of the payment schedule it is mentioned that the complainant has paid Rs.62,951.31 and net receivable amount of Rs.27,271.61 which remained outstanding. The complainant has offered the higher amount shown in the payment schedule to release of his Motor cycle but the OP finance company did not released. The OP finance company is engaged in unfair trade practice and taken away the vehicle forcibly from a friend without the knowledge of the complainant caused mental agony and physical harassment and loosed prestige in the society for which the OP finance company is also liable for compensation. In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed and the commission may kindly be directed the OP finance company to return the motor cycle  of the complainant on receipt of their legal dues if any and further Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony  and Rs.30,000/- towards cost of litigation. In case the Finance company is not able to release the vehicle of the complainant then OP finance company be directed to pay the entire EMI received from the complainant till seizure along with cost and compensation as prayed for.

The complainant relies upon the following documents:

1. Photo copies of Regd.certificate of the motor cycle.
2. Photocopy of the Up-to-date payment statement(up to 22.5.23).
3. Photocopy of FIR lodged before Sadar PS...
4. Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. The Op No.1&2 has not appeared but the OP.No.3 has appeared and filed his written version in detail. In his written version the OP stated that this OP.No.3 is the owner of a Stock yard only. The allegation made against the finance company i.e. OP.No.1 to OP.No.2 for seizure of the vehicle. This OP.No.3 has taking rent towards his parking charges for keeping repossession vehicles by the other Ops. This OP at no point of time has repossessed the vehicle of the complainant nor asked for his defaulted instalments dues to the complainant. Hence there is no cause of action against this OP.No3. However, in the meantime on dt.06.06.23 the OP.finance company has already delivered the hypothecated vehicle to the custody of the complainant as the complainant settled the dues and accordingly the OP.finance company issued a released order in my address and the complainant has already been received his vehicle from the financer.This OP.No.3 is no way liable for any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and the complainant is not a consumer of this OP and hence cannot asked for any liability against this OP. Hence prayed that your honour may kindly be dismissed the case against this OP. as the OP. has no role to play in the present case as alleged.

The OP relies upon the following documents:

1. Photocopy of release order.
2. Inventory copy.

On the above pleadings the following issues are framed to decide the case.

1. Whether the case is maintainable?
2. Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
3. Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for.

FINDINGS

            All the issues are inter related to each other, so they are discussed jointly. In this case the complainant prays to return the motor cycle on receipt of their legal dues with compensation and also prayed if the OP finance company unable to release the motor cycle all the EMIs to be refunded. In this case one Biswajit Behera was riding the motor cycle bearing No.OD-35E3848 but unfortunately the gundas of OP snatched away the above vehicle illegally for which FIR was lodged before Sadar Police,Keonjhar. But no steps were taken by the Police. OP No.1 & 2 engaged the Advocate to conduct the case but in due time no written version was filed. In paragraph 8 of OP.No.3 has clearly mentioned thatin the meantime on dt.06.06.23 the OP. finance company has already delivered the hypothecated vehicle to the custody of the complainant as the complainant settled the dues and accordingly the OP. finance company issued a released order in his address and the complainant has already been received his vehicle from the financer. The said vehicle was seized on 19.05.2023. One document also filed by OP.No.3 regarding seizure of the vehicle and release of the vehicle on 06.06.2023 and the said vehicle was released in favour of the complainant Sri NepakKhilar. So far as the hypothecation of vehicle is concerned this commission has no interference in the matter. Under the above situation this Commission feels that this case is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The OP has not made any deficiency of service.

ORDER

                 The present complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost.