Brief facts of the case is that the complainant is a registered owner of a Truck vide Regd. No.OR11J-4648 duly financed by Ops to maintain his family life by earning livelihood. On date 04.05.2022 the agent of Ops unauthorized repossessed the vehicle for default of three installments amounting Rs. 81,140/-. It is also alleges that single notice of seizure, showing outstanding due or final demand notice have not been served by Op-2. The complainant finding no way sent a legal notice to Ops to release the vehicle but Ops did not respond. So Ops have harassed the complainant mentally andphysically for which he prays to exempt illegal demands with reference tostatement of account and also prays to release the vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- for litigation.
On the above complain the case is admitted.Notice issued to Ops. Ops appeared and filed their written version cum preliminary objections. No interim order is passed and the case is posted for final hearing and order. The complainant relied on the following documents to substantiate his case.
- Photocopy of R.C Book.
- Photocopy of legal notice Dt. 21.07.2022
- Reply of legal notice by Ops Dt.12.08.2022
On the other hand the Opp. Parties submitted their w/v denying all the allegations in the complaint.
On Para3- Of written submission it is mentioned that the complainant in the entire complaint nowhere contended or averred that this Ops have in any manner breached or violated any of the provisions and conditions of the contract. The consumer complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
It is also submitted in w/v that Hon’ble Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complainant as per Arbitration Clause of said hypothecation agreement. The relationship between creditor and debtor is outside the scope and purviewof C.P Act-2019.
As per the decision cited by Ops with regard to grant of loan by Financial institution. It was held that borrower is not a consumer. In Mandal Plastic Industries Vs Bihar State Financial Corporation. 1978(2) CPR 254.
In reply to Para No.6, 7, 8 and 9 of the complaint the vehicle in question is repossessed and inspite of many more opportunities the complainant did not turn up to clear up the outstanding dues, so the Ops were compelled and constrained to dispose of the financed vehicle in order to save the company from any pecuniary loss in accordance with proper procedure and provision of law and the contract executed between the parties at the time of disbursement of loan. So Ops pray to dismiss the case being devoid of merits.
Taking into the complaint and w/v filed by Ops, the following issues are framed.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether the Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
FINDINGS
Its reveals from the complaint petition that the vehicle in question was repossessed by Ops on dt.4.5.2022. The complainant also admits that the last EMI was paid was on dt.3.2.2022. The complainant also admits in Para 4 of the complaint that there were three unpaid installments amounting to Rs.81,840/- which was due for payment . But to substantiate the exact amount of default EMIs the complaint has not submitted any accounts statement or loan agreement.. After the repossession of the vehicle on Dt. 4.5.2022 the complainant has issued pleaders notice on dt.21.7.2022 which was duly answered by the Ops on dt. 12.8.2022 clearly stating that they have repossessed the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of EMIs and observing the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. They have also intimated to the complainant the they have complied all procedures and sold the vehicle and the sale value was duly credited to the complaint’s account. But the complaint suppressed this fact and not stated in the petition. The complainant filed this case on dt.23.8.2022 after 3 and half months of repossession of vehicle and after getting reply of pleaders notice.
It is found from the records that Ops have made all formalities and procedures. So, Ops have not made any deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. So the case is not maintainable.
ORDER
The complainant petition being devoid of merits is rejected. The parties shall bear their own cost.
