1.   Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against this O.Ps for a direction not to pay any overdues as claimed by O.P. and also release of the vehicle and compensation.
2.   The case of the complainant is that he had borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the O.P after making all formalities. On 31.5 .2010 for purchase of second hand   Light goods vehicle .Accordingly the O.P financed  the same amount  which has been repaid by him on 34 monthly installment from April 2010 to 1.8.2013.The complainant had purchased a second hand vehicle TATA  709 Turbo vide Regd. No. OR 17 D8 001 from one Sekhar Kumar Aqrawalla.The complainant had already paid the installment before the O.P and in this way by 21.6.2014 the complainant paid  Rs.1, 52,070/-only   as per the account statement of the O.P.Further the O.P. demanded Rs.1,29,000/-   as over dues which is quite illegal and also contrary to the agreement. To the utter surprise the complainant vehicle was seized by the O.P. company without the notice to the complainant forcibly brought the vehicle to the Police Stations on 3.2.2015.The complainant rushed to the O.P and wanted to pay 50% of the loan amount overdues  and requested to release the vehicle. But the O.P. did not listen to the complainant. As the O.P did not cooperate with the complainant for release of the vehicle he filed this case against the O.P. for release of the vehicle and not to claim any overdues amount from the complainant. On 5.2.2015 an interim order has been passed in this case for release of the vehicle   on receiver of Rs.60, 000/- from the complainant.
3.  After being noticed, the O.P. appeared  and filed a revision against the order  dtd.5.2.2015  before the  Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Cuttack vide R.P. No.20/2015 .The Hon’ble Commission  passed  order  on dtd.31.8.2015  that  the O.Ps. are directed to release the vehicle Rs.1,11,609/-on receipt within one month. Accordingly the complainant on payment of the said amount the vehicle has been released by the O.P. Company. The complainant had also paid Rs.20,000/- on the same day for release of the said vehicle  from Akshaya Nath Stock yard,Sambalpur.The letter issued by the O.P only to release the vehicle in favourof the complainant, but the same person demanded the money and forcibly taken such huge amount without not giving  any receipt. The complainant also filed an affidavit to that affect before this forum.
4. Thereafter the O.P filed counter in this case. The case of the O.P is that the complaint does not come under the C.P.Act and not maintainable. As the complainant is a chronic defaulter  the O.P. proceed to seize the vehicle  .After receiving from the order of the Hon’bl;e State Commission the vehicle has been released  after receipt of outstanding monthly installment Rs.1,11,609/-.The O.P. had not made any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and prays for dismissal of the case. During the course of hearing the complainant filed documents like R. C. particulars of this vehicle, Xerox copy of the loan agreement, and also the O.P. filed same documents agreement and also the repayment schedule. The complainant also filed an affidavit so also the O.P. also filed an counter affidavit about the illegal taken of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. For the illegal seizure of the vehicle the complainant faced a  lot of trouble in his day to day  of living which caused deficiency of service and unfair trade practice made by the O.Ps.The O.P. had released the vehicle as per the order of the Hon’ble State Commission after receiving of all  monthly  installment
5. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and the O.Ps and documents,    we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.Ps not to claim any overdues amount relating to the loan account of the complainant. This case is disposed of accordingly.

Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the 10^th day of December,2015.