Shri A.K.Patra,President

1. Peruse the material available on record. Heard the learned counsel for the Ops present. It appears that, the complainant is remaining absent consistently. However, in view of Section 38(3) (c) of C.P.Act,2019  case record taken up today to decide the complaint on merit. We have our thoughtful consideration to  the  respective contention of both the parties.
2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant had purchased a Bajaj Pulsar / 150 Bike vide Regd. No .OD 08 F 4820 for a cost price of      Rs 90,000/- being financed by the Ops and have repaid Rs 64,967/- . However, said bike was snatched away in the Month of December 2017 by  the Ops on the road  in absence of complainant & without the knowledge of the complainant .So also it was auctioned @ Rs 12,000 /- though it could have fetch more than Rs.40,000/- in the local market which caused financial loss & mental agony .Hence this complainant alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.
3. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to pay Rs 40,000/- towards cost of the bike along with compensation of Rs 50,000/- towards expenses for searching of the said Bike at all point of Bajaj Finance Ltd Stock Yard and Rs 50,000/- towards facing medical problems suffered for lifting of the said  Bike without notice and Rs 5,000/-towards litigation cost.
4. On being notice, the ops appeared and filed their written version admitting the facts that, the Ops have provided loan to the complainant for purchasing the alleged Bike and loan EMIs repayment commenced from 05.12.2014 to 05.11.2016 but complainant got default for repaying of the loan EMIs. The complainant has neither taken interest to clear the outstanding due nor had surrendered  the subject  vehicle accordingly, the OPs recalled the loan and even after receiving the recalled notice the complainant has not taken any steps to close the loan dues for which the Ops on 30.12.2017 took back the peaceful possession of the subject vehicle on as is where  basis as per the terms of the loan with due knowledge /consent of the complainant and sold it on 28.01.2018 @ Rs 12,000/- following due process and adjusting  the sale price there exit deficit of Rs.56,559/-payable by the complainant .It is further stated that, there is no any cause of action for filling of this complainant as there is no any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of ops and further  this complaint is barred by limitation liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. The contention of the written version is proved by an affidavit evidence of one Biswaranjan Mohanty, an employee of the OP 1 remain un-rebutted.
6. As per Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record ; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
7. Law is well settled that, mere pleading itself shall not construed evidence. Complainant is to prove the allegation made in his complaint petition but here in this case no cogent evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove the complaint allegation of deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps .
8. Law governing hire purchase agreement is well settled that”:- “The financier remains the owner of the vehicle taken by the complainant on hire ,on condition of option to purchase ,upon payment of all hire installments. The hire installments are charges for use of the vehicle as also for the exercise of option to purchase the vehicle in future .The financer being the owner of the vehicle there was no obligation on the part of the financer,to divulge details of the sale of that vehicle ,and that too on its own ,without being called upon to do so .”(NCJ  2020 page-778)
9. Admittedly the Ops have repossessed the subject vehicle on dt. 30. 12.2017 as the complainant got default to repay the loan and sold it on 28.01.2018 . Accordingly cause of action arose on   30.12.2017 i.e date of repossess the subject vehicle and later on dt. 28.01.2018 when subject vehicle was sold causing financial loss & mental agony if any injurious  to the complainant. As such this complainant could have filed within two years of cause of action but admittedly it is filed on dt.30.12.2021 which is beyond the time period as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019   as such we are of the opinion that, this  complaint is barred by limitation not maintainable under C.P. Act 2019.
10. Based on above discussion and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief(s) as claimed rather, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps. Hence, it is order.

ORDER

      This complaint is dismissed on contest against the OPs .No order as to   cost.

                  Dictated and corrected by me.

                         President

                                                             I   agree.

                                                                                     Member                                                                   Pronounced in open Commission today on 27^th day of September 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

                  Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.