The complainant in C.C. No.16 of 2022 is the petitioner in this Misc. case.

            The case of the petitioner is that:-

          She has taken a loan from the Bank of  Baroda, Angul Branch headed by the opp. party No.1. Due to the pandemic Covid-19, she could not repay the instalments as required to pay. The R.B.I had declared a scheme for MSME sector. The petitioner had applied for financial assistance under the same scheme but the opp. party did not sanction the same. During financial crisis at the time of Covid-19, on 26.04.2021, the opp. party had issued a notice to the petitioner for payment of Rs.3,63,318.00 within 15days of receipt of such notice, or else necessary legal action will be taken against the petitioner. Lastly on 22.03.2022, the opp. party threatened to recall the total loan including interest etc. and to take possession of the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-35C-8226.

2.       Finding no other way, the petitioner has filed a consumer complaint before this Commission on 25.03.2022.  She had also filed Misc Case No.2 of 2022 on 25.03.2022 and after hearing an interim order was passed against the opp. party on 28.03.2022, in which the opp. party was directed not to cease the vehicle of the petitioner and not to take coercive action against the petitioner till further order.

3.       In the present Misc case, the petitioner has alleged that in the night of 27.03.2022, the opp. party cunningly and tactfully took away the vehicle from the possession of the driver of the petitioner applying force. It is further alleged that the opp. party is trying to dispose off the vehicle of the petitioner with the help of the R.T.O,Talcher. The petitioner has prayed for return of the seized vehicle to her along with other reliefs.

4.       Perused the original complaint petition in C.C.No16 of 2022, the petition filed in Misc. cases No. 2 of 2022 and 6 of 2022 along with the documents filed by both the parties. Admittedly the petitioner has taken a loan from the opp. party and purchased a truck bearing Regd. No. OD-35C-8226 for her business purpose and she has not paid the loan instalments as fixed by the opp. party. It is also admitted by the petitioner that on 27.03.2022 night, the agent of the opp. party has taken away the vehicle out of possession of her driver. It is also admitted that the petitioner is running some other business along with the present transportation business through the seized truck. The opp. party has alleged that the complainant has committed fraud for taking loan from other branches situated at Angul. It is specifically pleaded by the opp. party that in view of such fraud, the petitioner is not entitled to get financial assistance covered by the guidelines issued by RBI. So no further financial assistance was provided to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the opp. party also argued that the petitioner is not a consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act 2020 for which the case filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Commission. The opp. party has  also argued that a proceeding is pending before the D.R.T(Date Recovery Tribunal),Cuttack regarding the present loan availed by the petitioner for which the present proceeding before this Commission is barred, as such not maintainable.

5.       Unless a detail evidence is recorded from both the parties in the original consumer case at this stage, the complicated issues like-whether the petitioner has committed fraud for availing loan, whether the petitioner is entitled to get financial assistance covered by the guidelines issued by the RBI, whether the petitioner is a consumer or not and whether the present proceeding is maintainable before this Commission in view of pendency of a proceeding before the DRT,Cuttack, it can not be decided in the present Misc. case.

6.       The opp. party has already taken custody of the vehicle out of the possession of the petitioner in the night of 27.03.2022. The petitioner is a defaulter in payment of  instalments to the opp. party regularly. The opp. party is a public financing institution use to provide loan to the people for their economic growth. After detail discussion a reason order is to be passed in original complaint case. So at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to get recovery of the vehicle out of the possession of the opp. party who is the financer and real owner.

          The Misc case is disposed off.