Shri A.K.Patra,President 

1.   This captioned consumer Complaint is filed  by the complainant named above inter alia alleging  deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Op 1(one) for non disbursement of sanction loan amount and against the Op 2(two) for their illegal & forceful seizure of the finance vehicle for alleged nonpayment of bill/sale price of the vehicle.
2. Complainant has prayed for an order directing the O.P 2 (i) to release the seize tractor trolley vide Registration No. OD 08 M 5867 ,(ii) to direct the OP 1 to reschedule the repayment of loan amount from the date of release of the said tractor trolley,(iii) to direct the OP 1 not to impose any penal/over dues charges from dt.21.06.2020 till the release of said trolley,(iv) to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- and further to   pay Rs.2,000/- per day as compensation to the complainant from the filing of this present complaint till its disposal towards loss sustained for detention of the vehicle and (vi)further prayed for all other relief(s) which the Hon’ble Commission may deems fit and proper.
3.  Heard. Perused the relevant material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the both parties and argument advanced by the  learned counsel of the parties.  
4. Brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant has purchased a Swaraj Tractor vide Model No.843XM & Tractor Trolley Model Number Aman Trolly vide Registration No.OD08M 5866 & OD08M 5867 respectively. As per the agreement the complainant had paid Rs.1,70,00/- to the OP No.2 towards down payment of the tractor and the balance amount was financed by OP 1. The trolley was priced at Rs.1,40,000/- out of which  a sum of Rs.60,000/- was financed by OP No.1 and the rest amount of  Rs.80,000/- was duly paid by the complainant to the OP No.2. As per agreement vide contract No.    ORJEBP 00224 the EMI towards the repayment of the loan was fixed at Rs.16,594/- per month. Accordingly, he had been paying the EMI regularly till the month of June 2020 except the month of April 2020 when entire nation was under Lockdown due to the spread of Corona Virus. But to his utter surprise, on 21.06.2020 the OP 2 informed the complainant that, his tractor trolley was ceased by him for nonpayment of the sell price of the said tractor trolley.  On being enquired the complainant came to know that, the OP 1 , who had agreed to fiancé the  tractor and trolley has  not disbursed the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- for which the trolley was forcefully & illegally ceased by the OP No.2(two)/the dealer. It is contended that, the complainant approached the finance personnel of the OPO No.1 and requested them to disburse the sanctioned loan amount as early as possible but the same is not materialized rather the trolley is  illegally detained by the OP 2. It is submitted that, the illegal detention of trolley caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant is clear instance of deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for which the complainant is entitle for compensation payable by the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
5. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the following documents (i) photo Copy of Pleader notice dt.21.09.2020  along with two numbers of postal receipt issued to the Ops (ii) Letter dt.21.06.2020 issued to the complainant from the OP 2/ Maa Manikeswari Tractor alleged to be the original seizure memo issued by OPP 2 (iii) Certified copy of registration of the alleged  vehicle vide Regd. No. OD 08 M 5866 & OD08 M 5867 dt.21.07.2020 (iv)  copy of 5(five)  Nos. of money receipt i.e.dt 7.1.20,dt.7.2.20,dt.7.3.20,dt.18.6.20 & dt. 18.5.20 towards payment of EMIs to the OP No.1. The complaint averment is supported by an affidavit of complainant Tanu Majhi.
6. On being notice, OPs appeared through their leaned counsel   and  filed their  respective written version inter alia  denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.
7. The OP No.1 in their written version has submitted that, the complainant has availed loan/financial assistance for purchasing a Swaraj Tractor bearing model No.Swaraj 843XM and tractor trolley bearing model number Aman Trolley vide Registration No. OD 08 M 5866 and OD 08 M 5867 respectively from the OP No.1/Finance Company vide Contract No. ORJEBP 00224 dt.13.12.2019. As per the said loan agreement, the finance amount was Rs.5,95,247/-. The finance charge /interest amount is Rs.2,81,254/- and insurance charge is Rs.1,65,000/-. The agreement value was Rs.8,93,001/- which the complainant  is liable to pay in 53 numbers  of EMI @ Rs.16,594/- each for first 11 months, and Rs.13,658/- each for the next 42 months. The commencement of payment of EMI starts from 7.2.2020  and it will be ended on 7.6.2024. It is further submitted that, since the beginning  the complainant committed default in payment of EMI. The complainant is enjoying the vehicle he is to oblige the pay the EMI dues as per the repayment schedule as stipulated in the terms and condition of the loan agreement. But making continuously default in payment of EMIs dues for which OP/Finance Company is sustaining a financial loss. The demand notice calling upon the complainant to repay the outstanding dues is not responded by the complainant rather, create a false story making a false allegation of non disbursement of finance amount and further falsely create a story that, OP 2/the seller & dealer of the said vehicle has seized the  tractor trolley due to alleged nonpayment of full cost of the trolley by the OP1/ finance company to the dealer/OP-2.. The OP 1 claimed that, as on March,2021 there was overdue of Rs.1,67,804/- to be paid by the complainant and that, the complainant is liable to pay the delay payment charge and other charges to the OP 1/ Company and by demanding such charges from the complainant, the OP 1/ finance company  has not committed any illegalities or deficient in service. It is further submitted that, as  per agreement any dispute arises between the financer and borrower /complainant is to be decided through Arbitration and that, dispute is to be within the jurisdiction of  the proper Court of Chennai as such in view of the said arbitration clauses &  jurisdiction clause of the said loan agreement this complaint before this Hon’ble Commission is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is further submitted that, the vehicle has not been seized by the OP 19one)  rather it is seized by the OP 29(two) as such OP 2 is liable for the costs & consequences caused to the complainant. 
8. The OP 1 (one) further submitted that when the OP 2 has delivered the Tractor and Trolley to the complainant  after disbursement of loan amount  and after issuance of retail invoice , further payment of money to the OP 2(two) by the OP 1/Finance company does not arises at all. If the OP 2/Seller have really seized the trolley by taking the plea of nonpayment of sale price from the financer/OP 1 it is beyond their authority & power for which they are liable to face serious consequences. This is not the right forum to adjudicate this dispute between the dealer/seller of the vehicle and the finance company. It is further submitted that, the OP  NO.1 has not seized the trolley of the complainant as such the company is not at all responsible for any mental agony or loss suffered by the complainant due to loss of income if any. With this submission the OP 1(one) urged to dismiss the complaint with cost.
9. To substantiate their claim the OP 1 has filed the copy of the loan agreement vide Annexure-A , Retail Invoice of Tractor vide Annexure-B, Retail Invoice of Trolley vide Annexure-C, and statement of loan account vide Annexure-D  in their written version. The averment of the written version is supported by an affidavit of one Abhimanyu Parida ,Legal Executive  of the OP Finance Company is taken into the record.
10. The OP 2(two) filed their written version admitting the fact that, they have sold the alleged Tractor and Trolley to the complainant for consideration. It is submitted that, the complainant has paid Rs.80,000/- in two installment on different dates and had a condition that, he will be financed the balance amount of trolley i.e. Rs.60,000/- through the OP No.1 but till yet neither OP 1 nor the complainant has paid the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- to the OP 2 but the OP 2 in good faith had delivered the alleged Trolley on the very date with the  delivery of Tractor but due to non receiving of balance amount the OP 2 sustained heavy loss and also sustained financial hardship need to be compensate by the complainant & OP 1(one). It is further submitted that OP 2 is unaware regarding payment of EMI for the Month of March, 2020. It is further submitted that, the OP No.2 had never called the complainant intending to seized of either tractor or trolley rather, the complainant has voluntarily came to the show room of the OP 2 and left the Tractor & Trolley by saying that, he will take back the same after clearing the dues .
11.  It is further submitted that, the OP 2 is least concerned about the problem between the complainant and OP 19(one)/financer rather, he had sold the Trolley to the complainant but the complainant had not paid the balance sell price amount of Rs.60,000/- for which the OP 2 (two) is suffering financial hardship and mental agony. The complainant came to this Hon’ble Commission with a false and fabricated story.There is no illegal seizure of the alleged vehicle/trolley has ever been made or it has ever been retained by OP 2 rather, the complainant failed to pay the outstanding sale price amount  of  Rs.60,000/- till date and further the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,000/- per month since the date of parking of the alleged trolley till its release back . It is urged that, there is no cause of action arose for this complaint as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost against the OP 2(two).
12. Before discussing other facts and issues we feel it proper to decide the points of maintainability of the present complaint.
13. The Consumer Protection Act,1986 as well as new Consumer Protection Act,2019 specifically fixed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint for settlement of the dispute as such any agreement fixing jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute arose between the parties contrary to the statutory provision is not acceptable. Here the objection raised by the Ops that clauses of arbitration and jurisdiction bar this Commission (was the Forum) for entertaining the complaint is unsustainable. The Consumer Protection Act is an addition to any other enactment for redressal of grievance of a consumer.  As such there is no bar to present this complaint in spite of arbitration clauses & jurisdiction clauses if there in the loan agreement. In this regard we may relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Emmar MGF Land Ltd Vrs. Aftab Singh-1,(2015) CPJ 5 (SC) where it was led down that, an arbitration clauses on the agreement does bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to entertain the consumer complaint.
14. 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.
15. Here in this case, the complainant has not turned up to take part in the hearing so also failed to adduced any cogent   evidence on affidavit as prescribed under  C. P. Act 2019 to substantiate his claim.  The complaint averment is also not supported by any affidavit of the Complainant to consider the same as evidence.  The sole document relied by the complainant is there placed on the record i.e. letter dt.21.06.2020 issued from the OP 2/ Maa Manikeswari Tractor, Bhawanipatna to the complainant alleged to be the seizure memo of the Trolley in question. However, the content of said letter dt.21.06.2020 clearly shows that, the alleged vehicle/ Trolley was received by the OP -2 from the customer /complainant who volunteers to place it to the dealer/OP 2. There is no iota of evidence adduced by the complainant to hold that, the alleged vehicle is seized  by the OP 2 forcefully or illegally. On the other hand the op 1 averred that, it has disbursed the entire loan amount sanctioned to the complainant towards sale price of the vehicle receiving of which the OP 2 has delivered the alleged Tractor and Trolley to the complainant as per retail invoice dt.13.12.2029 vide Annexure- B & C of the written version respectively remain un challenged /un rebutted as such we are unable to conclude that sanctioned loan amount was not fully disbursed to the complainant. We found no unfair trade practice or deficient service on the part of the Ops.

16. Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits. Accordingly dismissed on contest against the Ops. However no order as to costs

            Dictated and corrected by me.

President

I   agree.

Member                                                                                       Pronounced in open Commission today on this   20^th April 2023 under l the seal and signature of this Commission. Pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

           Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost .The judgment be uploaded forth with on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.  Ordered accordingly.