The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Gopalpur, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Balasore, O.P No.3 is the General Manager, UCO Bank, Bhubaneswar, O.P No.4 is the R.T.O, R.T.A, Balasore and O.P No.5 is the Managing Director/ Owner, Sai Motors, Nuasahi, Balasore. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant having 3 standard acres of agricultural land and being a small farmer had been to O.P No.1, where O.P No.1 agreed in principle to sanction a tractor loan with an initial deposit of Rs.1.00 Lakh (Rupees One lakh) only by the Complainant for such financial assistance. The O.P No.1 further assured  not to obtain any type security or mortgage in manner expecting the tractor to be hypothecated to the O.P No.1 and also arrange for subsidy of Rs.97,000/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand) only. But, the O.P No.1 and 5 share the subsidy amount and having an unholy nexus with each other forcibly repossessed the financed and hypothecated vehicle and demanded additional amount from the Complainant. The O.P No.1 also assured the Complainant about the chance of debt waiver due to Union of India’s debt waiver scheme. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased a tractor with the trailor from O.P No.5 vide invoice no. P/02, dtd.16.11.2010, challan No.17 from O.P No.5, bearing Regd. No.OR-01-R-6458 with O.P No.4, where road tax, permit, fitness and insurance charges were duly paid. The Complainant has repaid Rs.3,37,834/- (Rupees Three lacs thirty seven thousand eight hundred thirty four) only against the financial assistance of Rs.4,99,846/- (Rupees Four lacs ninety nine thousand eight hundred forty six) only besides payment of margin money of Rs.1.00 Lakh (Rupees One lakh) only and lastly paid Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only on 30.09.2015. But, the O.P No.1 collusively with O.P No.2, 3 and 5 had illegally and forcibly without any prior notice to the Complainant, snatched away the said tractor and trailor without following any provision of Law though the trailor was not   financed by O.P No.1.  Such type of activity by the O.Ps compelled the Complainant to be a defaulter, thereby depriving him for eligibility of subsidy in order to grab the same by the O.Ps. Moreover, the loan account of the Complainant is not classified as NPA. Thus, the acts of O.Ps like seizure of tractor illegally put the Complainant into serious trauma, mental agony and financial burden. The Complainant has run from pillar to post for getting back the tractor and trailor with an intention to pay some amount, but the O.P No.1 has hurriedly resold the same to somebody else at a higher price, thus was not able to return the same to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for return of the tractor and trailor or else refund of amount with interest along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.

                    3. Written version filed by O.P No.1 through their Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1-Bank has further submitted that loan of Rs.4,99,846/- (Rupees Four lacs ninety nine thousand eight hundred forty six) only was sanctioned  by O.P No.1 on 20.11.2010 in order to purchase a tractor by the Complainant only after executing required documents and accordingly, the loan is disbursed to the account of the Complainant and the Complainant purchased the tractor from O.P No.5, which is registered with the O.P No.4. Copy of loan agreement and process note are enclosed. Subsequently, while the Complainant failed to repay his monthly loan installments fixed by the bank, the O.P No.1 has taken necessary steps to seize and possess the hypothecated vehicle in accordance with the provisions of Law and thereafter, the said vehicle was put into auction to realize the loan dues with the bank and the sale proceeds thereof is also credited into the loan account of the Complainant with the O.P No.1. The statement of account of the Complainant is also enclosed. The present outstanding loan amount of the Complainant as on 26.05.2016 is Rs.2,50,225/- (Rupees Two lacs fifty thousand two hundred twenty five) only, which he is liable to pay along  with interest.  The Complainant has filed a complaint before Khantapada P.S vide P.S case No.129, dtd.28.03.2017 arising out of same cause of action, which is under investigation, thereby the complaint is not maintainable. This act of the Complainant reveals his litigant attitude, thereby dragging the O.Ps into a series of litigation for no fault. The Advocate for O.P No.1 remained absent and did not take part in hearing of this case.

                    4. The O.Ps No.2 and 3 have neither appeared in the case nor  have filed their written version. So the O.Ps No.2 and 3 are set ex-parte.

                   5. Written version filed by O.P No.4 through A.G.P, Balasore denying on the point of Consumer, maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.4 has further submitted that the Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-01R-6458 (tractor) and the said vehicle is registered as new vehicle under O.P No.4 as commercial vehicle on 02.12.2010 and is hypothecated with O.P No.1 i.e. UCO Bank, Gopalpur branch, Balasore. Since the registration, the hypothecation has not been cleared up and road tax (revenue) of the said vehicle is paid up to 31.12.2015. The O.P No.4 is no way concerned with the disputes as alleged by the Complainant. The A.G.P on behalf of O.P No.4 remained absent and did not take part in hearing.

                   6. The O.P No.5 is deleted in this case.

                    7. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    8. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after purchase of a tractor, the Complainant has repaid Rs.3,37,834/- (Rupees Three lacs thirty seven thousand eight hundred thirty four) only against the financial assistance of Rs.4,99,846/- (Rupees Four lacs ninety nine thousand eight hundred forty six) only with payment of margin money of Rs.1.00 Lakh (Rupees One lakh) only, but O.Ps No.1,2,3 and 5 forcibly without any prior notice to the Complainant, snatched away the said tractor and with the trailor, which was not financed by O.P No.1, for which the Complainant became defaulter and accordingly, the loan account of the Complainant is not classified as NPA. Then, the O.P No.1 has resold the same tractor to somebody else at a higher price, for which the Complainant has filed this case praying for return of the tractor and trailor or else refund of amount with interest along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the Advocate for O.P No.1 remained absent at the time of hearing of this case. But, according to him, the Complainant has to pay outstanding loan amount of Rs.2,50,225/- (Rupees Two lacs fifty thousand two hundred twenty five) only till 26.05.2016 and after sale of the said tractor, the amount was credited to the loan account of the Complainant. The account of statement available in the case record discloses that on 26.05.2016, a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand) only was deposited and the balance was Rs.2,50,225/- (Rupees Two lacs fifty thousand two hundred twenty five) only. The Complainant has filed a P.S case No.129, dtd.28.03.2017 before Khantapada P.S against O.Ps, which is under investigation. The O.P No.2 and 3 are set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. The A.G.P on behalf of O.P No.4 was also absent at the time of hearing of this case and according to him, the O.P No.4 is no way concerned with this dispute as alleged by the Complainant. It has been further argued on behalf of the Complainant that the Complainant is a Consumer and the O.Ps have illegally sold the said tractor. In support of his argument, the Advocate for the Complainant has relied upon the Authority reported in AIR 2006 ORISSA 97 in the case of Biratunga S.C.S Ltd. (Mini Bank) (Vrs.) Sangram Keshari Pati & Ors., wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court that Banking service is a service as defined under the C.P Act and the O.P No.1 having hired the said banking service provided by the writ petitioner for a consideration, he comes under the definition of a Consumer as defined in Section 2(d) of the C.P Act. Further, the Authority reported in 2012 (I) CLR (SC)-122 in the case of Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. (Vrs.) S. Vijayalaxmi, wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of Hire-Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force. Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. In the instant case, nothing has been put forth before us to show that due procedure of Law has been followed for repossession of the said vehicle and selling of the same. 

                    9. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principles laid down by the above Authorities as discussed earlier, this Forum come to the conclusion that the sale of vehicle by O.P No.1 to 3 is illegal. So, the O.Ps No.1 to 3 are jointly or severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the Complainant and the Complainant is also liable to deposit the outstanding dues against him till clearance of the dues within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same by the O.Ps will carry interest @ 10% per annum, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-     

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against O.P No.2 and 3 with cost and the case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.4. The O.Ps No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly or severally liable for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the Complainant and the Complainant is also liable to deposit the outstanding dues against him till clearance of the dues within 60 days of receipt of this order and failure to comply the same by the O.Ps will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps No.1, 2 and 3 as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps No.1, 2 and 3 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of October, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.