Presented by Sri B.K. Pati, Member:- <br /> The present complainant pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> Its brief history is as follows:-<br /> The Complainant in order to earn his livelihood, purchased one Bajaj Discover 125 C.C. Motor Cycle, vide Regd. No. OR-15-J-2038, Engine No. DSGBMD17823, Chassis No. DVA BMD 18411 under finance by the Opposite Party/Company. At the time of making agreement he gave twenty three numbers of cheques to the Opposite Parties/Bank for the purpose of encashment in case of default of payment. The Complainant was himself paying the installment or presenting and encashsing the said cheques by the Opposite Parties. On Dt. 28/2/2007 Bikash Mishra the agent of the Opposite Parties/Bank took from the Complainant Rs.14,872/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred seventy two)only but issue a receipt of Rs. 12,872/-(Rupees twelve thousand eight hundred seventy two)only as full and final settlement and Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards agent fee assuring the Complainant to send the No Due Certificate from the company. Further on Dt. 22/08/2007 while the Complainant was absent from his home and only female members were there, the agents of Opposite Parties/Bank namely Nihar Mahananda of Bargarh and Kanhu Bag of Attabira came to the house of the Complainant and forcibly took away the vehicle from the house of the Complainant while its key was with the Complainant. On contact with the officers of the Opposite Parties/Bank, they told him that there was mistake in the calculation arising out of premature payment of installment before due time. This caused mental agony and pain to and loss of reputation and dignity of the Complainant. The Complainant prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties/Bank to give a detail account in the court and to arrive at full and final settlement within the notice of the Court and pay him Rs. 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand)only and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards mental pain and agony and litigation cost respectively and release the vehicle in favour of the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) in its version contends that the Complainant is a habitual defaulter always intending to avoid payment of installments. Denying forcible repossession it says that the Complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle in favour of the Bank after preparation of due inventory as he failed to pay the installments in spite of notice and personal request. So it does not amount to deficiency of service and does not violate the consumer-service provider relationship. As a result, the Complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for by him. Hence the case is liable to be dismissed with cost U/S 26 of Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version makes a blanket denial of all the allegations made against him and contends that he never worked as an agent of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and also does not know the Complainant, neither he is related with the incident of forcible repossession of the vehicle. He prays for dismissal of the Complaint so far as the Opposite Party No.2(two) is concerned.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.3(three) has been set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> The case of the Complainant is that, the agent of the Opposite Party No.1(one) forcibly took away the vehicle in question from the female members of the house when the Complainant was absent and the key of the vehicle was with him. Besides, one Bikash Mishra, an agent of said Opposite Party took from the Complainant Rs. 14,872/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred seventy two)only and issued a money receipt for Rs. 12,872/-(Rupees twelve thousand eight hundred seventy two)only as full and final settlement and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only towards agent fee, assuring the Complainant to send the No Due Certificate from the company. Payment receipt No. L-0107-7682708 filed by the Complainant showing receipt of Rs.12,872/-(Rupees twelve thousand eight hundred seventy two)only and on the revers side thereof a calculation made showing Rs.12,872/- (Rupees twelve thousand eight hundred seventy two) only + Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand)only = Total Rs. 14,872/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred seventy two)only testifies to and corroborates the case of the Complainant that actually Rs.14,872/-(Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred seventy two)only was taken from the Complainant. Given the modus operandi of many a financing agency of applying force through goons, the allegation of the Complainant cannot be disbelieved.<br /> <br /> The Motor cycle is now in the possession of the Complainant being released through an order of this Forum U/S 13(3)(B) of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. That the Complainant had to knock the door of this Forum to secure justice from the high handedness and unlawful act of the Opposite Parties/Company amounts to deficiency of service committed by the said Opposite Parties towards the Complainant.<br /> The Complainant failed to prove that the Opposite Party No.2(two) and No.3(three) were the agents of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and were involved in the alleged act. As such no order is made against them. <br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Party No.1(one) is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards cost/compensation and to issue a No Due Certificate in favour of the Complainant in respect of the Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No. OR-15-J-2038, within thirty days hence, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br /> Typed to my dictation <br /> and corrected by me.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri Binod Kumar Pati,<br /> I agree, I agree, M e m b e r.<br /> <br /> <br /> Miss Bhagyalaxmi Dora, Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan,<br /> M e m e b r. P r e s i d e n t . <br />