ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                         JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties not to repossess the Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-29G-1777 and to supply a copy of the loan agreement and current account statement and to adjust the rate of interest as per the old agreement after deducting the penal interest and to receive the installment for the loan without adjusting the same in any other charges and to exonerate the complainant from any other unnecessary charges and pay compensation of Rs.3,60,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant seeks challenge the illegal action of the opposite parties in attempting to seize the vehicle without any justifiable reason and without taking the recourse of law, and without any notice. The complainant being an educated and unemployed youth has purchased one Truck in the year 2019 financed by opposite parties for his livelihood and for maintenance of his family from the earning of the vehicle. The opposite parties have extended loan of Rs.30,40,000/- with interest @ 10.9348% under loan agreement loan 17.6.2019 liable to be repaid in 68 monthly installments of Rs.71,160/- starting from 21.8.2019 to 21.3.2025. The complainant used to ply the vehicle and used to repay the loan installments in regular intervals to the opposite parties in time and due to frequent notification of Govt. regarding Covid-19 the luck down procedure the complainant not able to ply his vehicle, the vehicle was sitting idle since one year which was within the knowledge of the opposite parties. But for such an unprecedented situation, the complainant has failed to repay EMIs completely due on him and hence an amount of Rs.3,57,216/- (5 installments) has been shown in the statement of account dtd.28.8.2022 as balance to be paid (overdue) as on 21.8.2022. After refinance the complainant had already paid about Rs.29,45,098/- out of total receivable amount about Rs.33,02,3143/- as on 24.8.2022.

            The opposite parties filed their written version stating as under;

            The complainant has absolutely no cause of action to bring the instant complaint against the opposite parties, since the complainant is the registered owner of multiple commercial vehicle and all the defaulted loan contracts is classified as NPA as per the RBI Circular dated 01.04.2022 RBI/2022-23/15 DOR.STR.REC.4/21.04.048/2022-23. The complainant is guilty of suppression of facts and malicious misrepresentation. The fundamental maxim is that the plaintiffs in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle the complainant is not entitled to any relief as he has not come to the forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The complainant has filed the case maliciously to get rid of the loan liability and to escape from the legal proceedings going to be initiated against him. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6347 of 2012 “M/s Micro Hotel P. Ltd v. M/s Hotel Torrento Ltd and others” in paragraph 23 that “…… a duty cost upon the borrowers to repay the installments in time……. 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”. The complainant as a commercial user has taken this commercial vehicle for commercial purpose only which cannot be considered as livelihood. Further the complainant has taken the governmental benefits like Covid-19 moratorium in the subject loan contract from the period of 21.3.2020 to 21.8.2020 along with one governmental cash guarantee loan has been availed by the complainant on dtd.24.3.2021 vide loan contract No.200099473 with sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. Even then made default and now the loan is under NPA category, but the complainant very innocently representing himself as a regular loan payer which is no way acceptable.

            As per order dt.29.8.2022 this Commission vide order dt.29.8.2022 directed as under;

            “Heard the Advocate for complainant ex-parte. Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. The complainant is maintaining his livelihood by engaging himself and in case the vehicle/asset will be repossess, he will suffer irreparable loss. Considering the genuine grievance and taking into consideration the circumstances, issue notice to the opposite parties to file objection if any but in the meantime the opposite parties are directed not to repossess the asset (vehicle) bearing Regd. No.OD-29-G-1777 of the complainant on receipt of 30% of EMIs from the complainant within three weeks (from the date of receipt of this order) and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.20.9.2022.”

            It is submitted by counsel for opposite parties that complainant himself has not carried out the aforesaid order and as such he is not interested to proceed in the matter complying the order of this Commission.

            When the complainant himself is not carrying out the order of this Commission which has been passed protecting the interest of complainant and he has no interest. It goes to show that complainant is not interested to proceed in the matter. On being asked counsel for complainant admitted that complainant has not carried out the order of this Commission.

The complainant has filed the case maliciously to get rid of the loan liability and to escape from the legal proceedings going to be initiated against him. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6347 of 2012 “M/s Micro Hotel P. Ltd v. M/s Hotel Torrento Ltd and others” in paragraph 23 that “…… a duty cost upon the borrowers to repay the installments in time……. 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”.

            In view of the settled principles of law and complainant himself not carried out the order of this Commission we held that complainant is not able to make out a case. Accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.