SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal repossession and threat of sale of the vehicle are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant being a poor, unemployed youth and for maintaining his family purchased an Auto bearing Regd. No. OD-29A-4667 with the financial assistance from Op-finance Company. Complainant by executing an agreement No ORBUKN00160 availed a finance amounting of Rs. 1,71,000/-. As per the agreement it was agreed between the parties that complainant will pay an amount of Rs. 6,539/- towards monthly installments and the loan dues are to be cleared in between dtd. 01.07.2014 to 01.11.2017. It is also alleged that, Complainant was paying the monthly dues regularly and lastly the payment was made on dt. 06.09.2017 at the Branch office of Op located at Kendrapara. It is further alleged that the Ops are not entitled to any installments towards the loan dues and inspite of that Ops by using their henchmen repossessed the vehicle at Pahal without serving any prior Notice. The Acts of the Ops caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and his family member and same is treated as deficiency in service. The last cause of action arose on dtd. 12.02.2018 when the Ops refused to release the vehicle and complainant preys this Forum seeking a direction to Ops to release the vehicle as per schedule of the claim mentioned in the complaint to the tune of Rs. 2,42,128/-.
3. OPs though appeared into the case through their Ld. Counsel Mr. B. Rout on dtd. 22.03.2018, but did not file any written statement to defend their case, accordingly set ex-parte by this Forum vide order No. 13 dtd. 08.08.2018, U/S 13(2) (b)(ii) of C.P.Act-1986. Ops on the date of pronouncement of order files written statement alongwith documents and the written statement is not considered in the circumstances.
4. Take up the ex-parte hearing against Ops and case of the complainant on merit as complainant remains absent during the course of hearing. Complainant in order to substantiate his case files attested Xerox copy of vehicle Inventory list dtd. 06.09.2017, photocopy of 3 nos. of payment receipts and other connected documents related to the vehicle. The facts appears from the complaint and documents filed by the complaint that complainant purchased an Auto, ATUL GEM PAXX bearing Regd. No. OD-29A-4667 being financed by Op-finance Company. The complaint further reveals that, the Ops are not entitled to any dues towards monthly installments and without any prior Notice reposed the vehicle on dt. 06.09.2017. It is also the case of the complainant that, Ops are threatening to sale the vehicle without any valid reason. As the complaint is not defended by the Ops and is non-rebuttal in nature, the complaint is allowed and the Ops are deficient in service by illegally repossessing the vehicle in question. Thoough the complainant apprehends sale of vehicle by Ops and status of the vehicle is in dark in absence of any written statement of the Ops, and the relief sought for in this aspect is confusing and creates ambiguity. Hence, this Forum does not express any opinion in connection to sale of the vehicle.
Having observation reflected above, it is directed that Ops shall release the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No. OD-29A-4667 within one month of receipt of this order, if not released earlier. It is further directed that, Ops will pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-(Rs. Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation Rs. 1,000/-. The order is to be carried out within one month of receipt of this order, failing which action maybe initiated against the Ops as per the provisions of C.P.Act. 1986.
Complaint is allowed in part with cost on ex-parte against Ops.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 31st day of January,2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
