The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 M/s. Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Sahadevkhunta, Balasore, O.P No.2 is M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and O.P No.3 is M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Worli, Mumbai.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant is the co-borrower and the son of the Complainant-Sri Santosh Kumar Pati is the principal borrower and Registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Indigo ECS LX TDI bearing Regd.No.OD-O1D-2231 being financed by the O.Ps. The Complainant, being Senior citizen used to drive the said vehicle, maintains his livelihood and pays the installments. But, on 23.07.2016, while the Complainant had been to Bhubaneswar in his vehicle on the way, the officials along with their hunch men demanded unpaid installments at Chandikhole and due to non-payment of the same, the O.Ps repossessed the said vehicle and released on 14.09.2016. Again on 29.12.2016, one employee of O.P No.1 Sri Chandan Kumar Mohanty along with some hire goondas repossessed the said vehicle. Such activities of the O.Ps are quite illegal, whimsical and arbitrary, which caused mental agony, loss and unnecessary harassment to the Complainant. The said vehicle is in the custody of the O.Ps and the value of said vehicle is Rs.5,87,500/- (Rupees Five Lacs eighty seven thousand five hundred) only, but the O.Ps did not release the vehicle even after several request made by the Complainant. Thus, the Complainant served Advocate notice to the O.Ps on 21.01.2017 requesting them to return the vehicle by accepting one month installment, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it, there by the Complainant filed this case claiming for loss on business and compensation for illegal detention of vehicle along with interest. The Complainant has prayed for appropriate order in respect of his claim.
3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but neither they appeared nor filed their written version in this case. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate his plea, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that the O.Ps had unilaterally and whimsically seized his vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-O1D-2231 while plying on the road by violating the Law of the Land. The Complainant is the co-borrower and the son of the Complainant is the principal borrower of the said vehicle. The entire plea of the Complainant remains un-challenged as O.Ps are set ex-parte. However, from the complaint petition, it came to the notice of the Forum that on 18.01.2017, the O.P No.1 being colluded with other O.Ps denied this Complainant to take one month installment and release the said vehicle and threatened openly to sale the vehicle to the 3rd Party. So, it shows that there is some arrear of installments for payment to the O.Ps by the Complainant and the Principal borrower towards loan of such vehicle. But, the Complainant is silent regarding total amount of dues outstanding against him towards the vehicle for repayment of loan including installments for the reason best known to him. Further, he has prayed for compensation from the O.Ps. The O.Ps did not care to appear in this case and to assist the Forum to come to definite conclusion regarding their disputes though he has already taken the possession of the vehicle forcibly. In support of his argument, the Complainant has relied upon the Authority reported in 2013 (I) OLR-586 in the case of Chaudhury Susil Chandra Das (Vrs.) The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tikhiri Branch, Kendrapara & another, where in it has been held that seizure made by the O.Ps/Bank was not in accordance with law and the O.Ps/Bank could not have seized the Tractor without following due process of Law and there is direction for release of the Tractor.
5. So, in this circumstances, on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by the above Authority as discussed earlier, now this Forum come to the conclusion that the O.Ps be directed to return the vehicle of the Complainant bearing Regd.No.OD-O1D-2231 to the Complainant followed by compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 9% per annum, subject to clearing of all outstanding arrear dues towards said loan by the Complainant to the O.Ps, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.Ps with cost. The O.Ps are directed to return the vehicle of the Complainant bearing Regd.No.OD-O1D-2231 to the Complainant followed by compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization, subject to clearing of all outstanding arrear dues towards said loan by the Complainant to the O.Ps within 60 days from receipt of this order. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 12th day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
