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

                                                                                       JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to consider the expenses incurred in the garage for the repairing of the tractor after release of the vehicle form the stockyard of Rs.1,80,000/- and to credit the said amount in the loan account of the complainant and thereafter to fix the liability and compensate Rs.2,20,000/- towards mental agony, financial loss sustained by the complainant for the illegal and forcible seizure on 09.8.2019”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is an unemployed youth and in order to earn his livelyhood intended to purchase a tractor to engage the same in cultivation and in ancillary work or hire. To fulfill his desire, he contacted with the opposite party No.2 and availed the loan to purchase the vehicle. The cost of the vehicle was Rs.7,15,000/- , complainant had to pay Rs.1,65,000/- as margin money, Rs.1,301/- towards documentary charges, Rs.6,500/- towards processing charges, Rs.4,087/- towards first installment in total complainant had paid Rs.1,76,888/-. Thereafter the opposite parties financed amount of Rs.5,50,000/- which is to be liquidated within five years in 56 installments @ Rs.15,220/- per EMI. The complainant became defaulter for four months as the tractor remained idle because of the mechanical problem. On 09.8.2019 opposite parties without giving prior information repossessed the vehicle. However the complainant on 16.8.2019 paid the defaulted amount and got the tractor and found most of the important parts have been replaced in the tractor in place of the removed parts. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties so also to the police by lodging FIR on 17.8.2019. The complainant for repairing took the tractor to a garage and the mechanic of the garage found 22 items of the vital parts of the tractor have been removed and replaced which was/is costing about Rs.1,55,463/- and complainant repaired the tractor with much difficulties spending about Rs.1,80,000/-. In spite of lodging FIR before the police stat ion and intimated the opposite parties about the replacement of vital parts of the tractor and they took no action and on 29.10.2019 opposite parties gave threatening to seize the vehicle again.

            Opposite parties did not file written version and field preliminary objection in misc case No.71/2019 (arising out of C.C. No.129/2019) stating as under;

            The complainant is a habitual defaulter and substantial amount is due to be repaid by him as per the account statement total outstanding Rs.77,993/- as on 25.11.2019. Complainant has himself admitted that the vehicle was repossessed once earlier due to default in repayment by him and was released accordingly after he deposited the defaulted EMIs. Thereafter he again stopped repayment from which it is crystal clear that he is repeating the same modus operandi and intentionally avoiding repayment of legal dues payable to the opposite parties.

            Counsel for both parties are absent since long. We have gone through the records and found that the allegation relates to removal of some vital parts during the time when it was in the custody of opposite parties for which FIR was alleged to have been lodged and action therein is awaited. Since disputed fact is involved and there is criminal case pending, the result of this case may affect the criminal case and we should not give any finding on such case prior to its finalization. The scope and jurisdiction is limited with regard to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has not been made out in this case.

            For the reason stated above, the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.