ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 not to repossess the (Excavator) and supply a copy of the loan agreement and current amount statement and to reschedule the loan amount excluding overdue charges by fixing a lesser amount after calculating the same in the agreed rate of interest and to exonerate the complainant from any other unnecessary charges and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant having experience in excavation work and being a operator having license decided to enter in that business and to purchase an excavator to earn for his live hood and to maintain his family out of the income by plying the said vehicle and as per assurance of opposite party No.2 the complainant purchased one used excavator at consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and paid Rs.5,53,200/- to the owner of the vehicle and the rest has been sanctioned by the opposite party No.1 & 2 and complainant also invested for insurance and repair of the excavator amount to Rs.2,00,000/- and make it fit for running.   Due to illness and due to heavy rain and flood in the river the machine could not able to move from the river side and surrounded with water and became idle for pretty long time about four months and the complainant could not able to pay the installments in time and the same was intimated to the opposite parties No.2 orally. All of a sudden on 28.11.2019 without any notice/intimation the muscle men of opposite parties reached at Abidhianandapur where vehicle was parked tried to repossess the vehicle by use of force and due to mechanical problem it could not be started and they threatened the complainant that they will repossess the vehicle very soon after making minor repair of the vehicle. Without any settlement in spite of several requests, it is a clear case of deficiency of service and monopoly trade practice of opposite parties.

            The opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version stating as under;

             The cost/value of the financed 2^nd hand Tata Hitachi Ex 110 Excavator/ asset is Rs.25,00,000/- and the complainant has availed financial facility of Rs.21,43,036/- from the opposite parties, for which the instant complaint is not coming under the purview of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this learned Forum.  Similarly the learned Forum/Commission also lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instant consumer complaint case against the opposite parties as the complainant has only impleaded the Head Office at Kolkata, West Bengal and Regional Office at Bhubaneswar, in the District of Khurda, Odisha. The complainant with malafide intention and  ulterior motive has impleaded the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Jagatsinghpur Branch at Jagatsinghpur as opposite party No.3 only to bring this consumer complaint case within the territorial jurisdiction of this learned Forum/Commission. Curiously, the complainant has neither prayed for any relief against the opposite party No.3 nor mentioned in any paragraph of his complaint petition as to how the opposite party No.3 is a necessary or proper party in this proceeding. The complainant is to clear his dues in 34 nos. of EMIs. The complainant is to pay Rs.77,796/- as EMI for 34 months on 05^th day of each month. The due date of payment of EMI commenced from 05.02.2019 and the maturity date is 05.11.2021. But, from the very beginning the complainant committed defaults in payment of EMI dues for which the opposite parties had sent several demand notices calling him to pay the outstanding dues. But, the complainant did not pay any heed to those demand notices. As per the statement of account dtd.09.12.2019, it is revealed that the complainant is liable to pay the total outstanding dues of Rs.5,33,183.53 paisa to the opposite parties.

            The opposite party No.3 filed his written version stating as under;

            The complainant admittedly not prayed any relief against the opposite party No.3 being satisfied that the bank has got no direct or indirect relationship with the alleged matter in dispute for which he is not seeking any relief against him which proves that the opposite party No.3 has no deficiency of service or adopted any unfair trade practice therefore question of financial loss and mental agony by the opposite party No.3 nor he has got any malafied intention to the cause of any damage to him.

            The cost/ value of the good is Rs.25,00,000/- finance amount is Rs.21,43.036/- and opposite party No.3 is no way concerned with opposite parties No.1 & 2 and this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction. Thus this Commission lacks both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this application. Accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. No cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 24^th Feb.,2023.