<br /> Presented by Sri B.K.Pati, Member:-<br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act -1986. Its brief history is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant had owned a Bajaj CT 100 Motor Cycle being financed by the Opposite Parties Bank, with a down payment of Rs.14,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand)only by the Complainant, to be repaid in Equal Monthly Installment(EMI) of Rs.1,531/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred thirty one)only each . The Complainant paid Rs.10,717/-(Rupees ten thousand seven hundred seventeen)only towards installments and failed to pay two installments due to financial difficulties. On Dt. 27/01/2008, the Agents of the Opposite Parties forcibly took away the vehicle from the possession of the Complainant at Dulampur Ps. Attabira Dist. Bargarh. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Parties did not follow, the due process of law, either by presenting the cheques issued by the Complainant or initiate proceeding U/S 138 of the N.I. Act, which amounts to deficiency of service. The Complainant claims that he has already spent a substantial amount of money including interest and service charges paid to the Opposite Parties. He has incurred financial loss as he was earning his livelihood by traveling on the vehicle and forcible repossession by the Opposite Parties inflicted mental shock and agony to him. The Complainant claims Rs.21,000/-(Rupees twenty one thousand)only form the Opposite Parties towards compensation.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties in their version allege that the Complainant is a habitual defaulter who willfully avoided payment of installments. Financial difficulties or family problem can't be a ground for non payment as per the agreement. The Complainant voluntarily surrender the vehicle when the recovery agencies approached him for payment. The Complainant had been served with prior notice and also personally requested by the Opposite Parties for payment of the outstanding installment. No force had been used and repossession on surrender by the Complainant is within the due process of Law. The Opposite Parties denied that, the Complainant pay any service charges or down payment to them and hence the Complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for and, the complaint should be dismissed with cost U/S 26 of the C.P. Act for filing a frivolous and vexatious case against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties submit. <br /> <br /> Perused the Complaint the version of the Opposite Parties and copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant having purchased the Motor Cycle in question being financed by the Opposite Parties Bank, the Complainant making some defaults in payment of EMI, the vehicle having been repossessed by the Opposite Parties are admitted facts. The Complainant had filed petition U/S 13(3)(B) and the vehicle was released in his favour by the Forum's Order Dt.01/02/2008 to the effect. Since the Motor Cycle is, now, in the possession of the Complainant we dispose of the case making an award of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only in favour of the Complainant to be paid by the Opposite Parties toward cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> Hence the Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainant a cost of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred)only, within thirty days from the date of this Order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% (twelve percent) per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br /> <br />