The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is M/s. Manager, HDFC Retail Loan Service Centre, Bhadrak, O.P No.2 is M/s. Managing Director, HDFC Bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar and O.P No.3 is M/s. Divisional Manager, H.D.F.C Bank Ltd., Balasore.

                    2. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the Regd. owner of the tractor bearing Regd. No.OD-22F-6010 with trailer Regd. No.OD-22E-6011, being financed by the O.Ps under hypothecation clause. The husband of the Complainant Sri Basanta Kumar Behera is the co-borrower in this loan, where O.P No.1 had taken 16 numbers of blank Cheque bearing No.077851 to 077858 (8 nos.) and 387188 to 387195 (8 nos.) of State Bank of India, Simulia ADB duly signed by the co-borrower as security as per terms and conditions of agreement dt.30.01.2016. The Complainant had paid the installments regularly till June, 2016, but failed to pay the installment from July, 2016 till date. As a result, the O.P No.1 deposited a Cheque No.077857 towards credit of above said loan account, which the co-borrower came to know on 17.06.2016. On receipt of an Advocate notice that the said Cheque has been misused by one Sarat Chandra Behera  illegally and one ICC case bearing No.256/2016 is filed for misuse of cheque No.077857 against the O.P No.1 and others in the court of J.M.F.C, Soro on 09.11.2016 after serving Advocate notice on 06.09.2016 on O.P No.1 and F.I.R lodged on 18.10.2016, which is subjudice in the court J.M.F.C, Soro. On receipt of advocate notice, the O.P No.1 with some hire gundas applied force to repossess the said tractor and trailer from the possession of the Complainant on dt.10.09.2016, but failed and again being colluded with O.P No.3 tried for such endeavor on 10.12.2016 at Soro, but failed accordingly. Thus, the Complainant has not engaged his tractor and trailer out of fear, which causes irreparable loss and mental agony to the Complainant, as such the act of the O.Ps amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the O.Ps and accordingly, the Complainant filed this case for appropriate relief. The Complainant has prayed for appropriate order in respect of claim be awarded.

                     3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but neither they have appeared nor have filed their written version. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.

                    4. In order to substantiate her pleas, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. The Advocate for the Complainant has argued that after failure of the Complainant to pay the installments from July-2016, one of the post dated cheque issued by the Complainant to O.P No.1 was misused, for which an ICC case bearing No.256/2016 has been filed by the Complainant in the Court of J.M.F.C, Soro and the matter is subjudiced till now. The Complainant has filed documents in this Forum regarding filing of this ICC case. However, according to the Complainant, the O.P No.1 has tried to repossess the vehicle, for which she has not used her Tractor out of fear. So, it amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the O.Ps. But, it is admitted fact that he is a defaulter of paying installments. According to the settled principle of Law, realisation of loan dues is the right of the O.Ps, but the Complainant willfully failed to do so and on the other hand, the Complainant came to this Forum for appropriate order without disclosing what is the nature of the relief she want. No copy of agreement between the Parties regarding finance has been filed by the Complainant for perusal of the Forum.      

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.Ps should not take the repossession of the vehicle without observing necessary formalities of Law and Complainant is duly bound to pay the dues without any further delay. No cost and compensation in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on ex-parte against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. The Complainant is directed to pay the defaulting installments as per agreement as early as possible, failing which the O.Ps are at liberty to realize the amount after observing necessary formalities of Law.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 11th day of August, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.