Presented by Sri G. S. Pradhan, President. <br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as provided under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Party/Bank and has availed a loan of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand)only on Dt. 22/07/2000 from the Opposite Party for purchase of a Power Tiller for his cultivation to be repayable in 14(fourteen) equal monthly installments. Due to defect in the Power Tiller the agricultural work was hampered and could not able to repay the installment in time.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that, due to non payment of installment, the Opposite Party illegally took possession of the Power Tiller on Dt. 15/01/2008. After seizure of the Power Tiller the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand )only on Dt. 15/02/2008, towards installment as per advice of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party assured to return the Power Tiller within 7(seven) days but remain silent and did not return the same to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Further the Complainant contends that as per the letter Dt. 22/07/2008 issued by the Opposite Party, the Complainant asked to take back the Power Tiller from Ganjam Security Service, Sambalpur at his own cost and also states that, the Complainant would be liable to charge at the rate of Rs.20/-(Rupees twenty)only per day towards parking charges which is illegal. The Complainant contends that, as per the advice of the Opposite Party Bank he had cleared up all the out standing dues since Dt.15/02/2008 in his account so that Opposite Party is duty bound to close the loan account and the Opposite Party Bank has no right to retain the seized Power Tiller.<br /> <br /> Due to such act of the Opposite Party Bank, the Complainant could not able to perform his agricultural work and suffered both mentally and financially.<br /> <br /> The Complainant prays to close the loan account of the Complainant without claiming any further amount relating the to Power Tiller, return the Power Tiller at its own risk to the Complainant and pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only compensation towards financial loss mental agony and litigation cost.<br /> <br /> On being noticed the Opposite Party appeared and filed its version through his counsel. In its version the Opposite Party denied to have cause either any deficiency of service or any restrictive trade practice towards the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Payment of Rs. 1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only towards two installment by the Complainant is not disputed by the Opposite Party. But the case of the Opposite Party is that payment of the said amount is not full and final payment of the loan account of the Complainant. But an amount of Rs. 10,843/-(Rupees ten thousand eight hundred forty three)only is still outstanding against the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Party contends that, the Complainant was approached in three occasion in March-2008, April-2008 and June-2008 for final closure of the loan account, but was no result. The Opposite Party also served a seizure notice on Dt. 24/05/2007 by Regd. Post with A.D. Further requesting the Complainant to clear up the outstanding amount of Rs. 97,205/-(Rupees ninety seven thousand two hundred five)only with upto date interest with in 15(fifteen) days as was due by then. After lapse of more than 15(fifteen) days when the Complainant did not pay the amount, the Opposite Party seized the hypothected vehicle (Power Tiller) on Dt. 15/01/2008 with the assistance of Ganjam Security Service, Sambalpur. The Complainant is liable to pay all the charges of seizure of the vehicle.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party contends that as per the term and condition of the agreement, the Complainant is liable to repay the loan amount with agreed rate of interest and due to failure of repayment of the loan amount the Opposite Party bank has seized the hypotheticated vehicle with the assistance of Ganjam Security Service, Sambalpur after due notice to the Complainant and for this the Opposite Party has incurred expenditure for guarding the vehicle which the Complainant is liable to pay.<br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Party contends that the relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is creditor and debtor. The Complainant has not hired any services for consideration and as such the Complainant can not be classified as consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint petition is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the pleading of the Parties copy of documents available on record and also carefully scrutinized the memo of arguments with cited ruling. The copy of documents filed by the Complainant after conclusion of the final hearing are not taken into consideration.<br /> It is not disputed by the Parties that the Opposite Party Bank has financed Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand)only to the Complainant for purchase of a Power Tiller for his cultivation. As per the agreement entered into, the Complainant has to repay the total amount including the interest in 14(fourteen) equal monthly installment. For default in payment of installment, the Opposite Party has seized the hypotheticated Power Tiller as per the term of agreement. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party/Bank that, the Complainant had paid Rs.1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only on two installments to the Opposite Party/Bank.<br /> <br /> It is the case of the Complainant that as per the advice of the Opposite Party/Bank, the Complainant has deposited Rs.1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only in two installments to close the loan account and to get back his seized Power Tiller. But the Opposite Party's case is that the deposited amount is not full and final amount but still some amount is outstanding against the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has availed the loan in the year 2000 and he has not paid the outstanding amount till Dt.15/01/2008, for which the Power Tiller was seized by the Opposite Party/Bank. After seizure, the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only on Dt. 15/02/2008 almost all of the loan amount to get back his vehicle. After payment the amount towards the loan account, the Opposite Party has not approached the Complainant by notice or letter demanding the exact outstanding loan amount for closure of the loan account. The Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence to show that, the Opposite Party has demanded the total outstanding amount of his loan account. The Account statement filed by the Opposite Party reveals that, after payment of Rs.1,04,000/-(Rupees one lakh four thousand)only, the Opposite Party has credited some amounts towards any others charges. The Opposite Party should have issued notice to the Complainant demanding the total outstanding dues for closure of the loan account but has not done. In the circumstance we believe the version of the Complainant that he has paid the amount to the Opposite Party on the advice of the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> On the point of maintainability, the Opposite Party/Bank has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble State Commission, Karnataka reported in CPR 1995 page 93 Karnataka on the other hand the Complainant has also relied on the decision reported in 2001(1) C.P.R. Page 1 (Supreme Court). In the present case, the Complainant has availed a loan from the Opposite Party for purchase of Power Tiller on payment of interest on the loan amount. The Complainant as a consumer was hiring services of the Bank for consideration by payment of interest ton the loan amount. Hence he is a consumer of Opposite Party and the Complaint is maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> In spite of payment of almost all the outstanding dues in respect of the Power Tiller as per the advice of the Opposite party the Opposite Party did not return the Power Tiller and close the loan account of the Complainant and demanding some more amount as per the copies of statement of accounts are deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties/Bank may realize the outstanding amount towards the loan account, to which the Opposite Party is entitled to, from the Complainant through proper court of law.<br /> <br /> In view of above discussion, the Complaint is allowed and directed the Opposite Party to release and hand over the seized vehicle Power Tiller at the Opposite Party's Bank premises and pays a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation which includes the litigation cost to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of this Order failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum shall be charged on the awarded amount till payment.<br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.<br /> Typed to my dictation <br /> and corrected by me.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> I agree I agree, Sri Gouri Shankar Pradhan<br /> President. <br /> Sd/- Sd/-<br /> Miss Bhagya Laxmi Dora, Sri Binod Kumar Pati, <br /> Member. Member.