DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                        C.C.NO.47 OF 2022

                                                                                                 Date of Filing : 29.09.2022

                                     Date of Order : 26.12.2022

Manas Ranjan Pradhan

S/O: Pratap Pradhan

VILL- Kakuguta

PO- Kurtamagada, PS- Tumudibandh

DIST- Kandhamal.                           …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. M/s MAA LALITA MOTORS,

                AT - Near hp Petrol Pump, Main Road,Balliguda

                PO/PS- Balliguda

                DIST- Kandhamal, PIN- 762103

2. M/s TVS Credit Services Limited,

     AT – Jaalakshmi Estate,

     No.29,Haddows Road, Nungabakkam,

     Chennai- 600006                                          ….……... OPP. Parties

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                           Sri Sudhakar Senapothi     - Member.

For the Complainant: Mr.Rabindranath Mishra, Advocate

For O.P.1 & 2- Ex-parte

JUDGEMENT

Sri Sudhansu Senapothi, Member

Complainant Manas Ranjan Pradhan has filed this case U/s. 35 of the CP Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs for repossessing his motorcycle even after payment all the loan dues and praying therein for direction to the OPs to return back the excess amount Rs. 34034.00 which he had deposited at the time of purchase of vehicle, refund the entire cost of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 1,16,825.00, Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation and Rs. 30000.00 towards cost of litigation and to allow interest @ 12 % per annum on the entire amount from 19.07.2021 till actual payment is made to him.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant purchased one TVS Apache RTR 160 4V motorcycle from OP No. 1 on dated 19.07.2021 for Rs. 116825.00. He availed a loan of Rs. 70,899.00 from the OP No. 2 repayable in 24 equated monthly installment of Rs. 3545.00 each. The vehicle was registered with RTO, Phulbani and was allotted registration mark OD12D5900. The complainant had issued cheques for repayment of loans for the period from 03.09.2021 to 03.05.2022. On 31.08.2022 the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000.00 through NEFT and Rs. 50,000.00 on 03.09.2022 but the OPs inspite of the payments snatched away the motorcycle by use of force without any prior intimation. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 on 19.07.2021 in cash initially as per the demands of the OPs and in that way the OPs have received excess amount than the actual cost of the vehicle as a result of which after the seizure he suffered mentally and financially and as the OPs did not listen to his grievance he has been compelled to file this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. Notice was issued to the OPs by registered post in their correct address with postage prepaid. It is seen from the track consignment that the notice sent to OP No. 1 was served on 31.10.2022 and the notice issued to OP No. 2 was also served on 31.10.2022. The track consignment of the postal department clearly shows that notice issued from this Commission was properly served on the OPs. After service of notice the OP No. 1 appeared in person and stated in his written statement that he is the dealer and he has no role to play in seizure of the vehicle nor he has any knowledge regarding such seizure and he has no other connection with the case. The OP No. 2 neither appeared nor challenged the allegation raised against him in any manner so, this Commission proceeded to dispose off the case after setting OP No. 2 as ex-parte.
3. It is seen from the documents on record that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and he has made the payments as stated in his complaint petition on different dates. The allegation of snatching away the bike by force without prior notice is a serious allegation. This allegation remains unchallenged. As the OP No. 2 did not appear nor challenge the allegation in any manner we have no other option but to accept the allegations raised against him. As a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is made out against the OP No. 2 he is liable to compensate the petitioner and hence the order.

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed ex-parte against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is made liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is directed to return the TVS Apache RTR 160 motorcycle bearing Regn. NO. OD12D5900 to the complainant forthwith on receipt of the order without claiming any other charge other and in the event of their failure to return the bike shall pay a sum of Rs.1,16,825/- (one lakh sixteen thousand eight hundred twenty five) only the complainant. The OP No.2 is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.34,034/-  which they have received as excess payment from the complainant at the time of purchase of vehicle. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/-(twenty thousand) only towards compensation and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount as directed shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

                                                   Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

      PRESIDENT                                                        MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 26th  day of December 2022 in the presence of the parties.

               PRESIDENT                                                                        MEMBER