JUDGMENT

Shri Aswini Kumar Patra, President

1.  The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant   alleging negligence & deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties for their repossession of the financed vehicle without serving prior notice and for charging of compound interest, interest over interest and penal interest over the loan during the Covid-19 period causing financial loss & mental agony to the complainant. 
2.  The complainant has prayed to declare the service of OP Company  as deficient for illegal seizure of his vehicle during Covid 19 pandemic situation and to direct the Ops to pay  compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-  for illegal seizure of the vehicle and further to direct the Ops to pay Rs.20,000/-  towards harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses.
3. Brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant  has purchased a Tata Zest XT 1.2RT to maintain his livelihood  being financed by the Opp.Parties vide Agreement No.XVFPKNG00002391611 and got it registered vide Registration No.OD-08-J-2388 on dt.04.06.2018  and that ,to avail the said finance the complainant has deposited Rs.1,00,000/- towards caution money and the loan amount is Rs.6,90,601/-   repayable in  69 numbers of  monthly EMIs which start from 28.05.2018 and will be ended on  28.01.2024 and out of which the complainant has already paid 51 EMIs i.e. an amount of Rs.5,80,000/-  to the Ops towards repayment of said  loan amount.  However, due to Covid 19 situation and due to expenses for his medical treatment, the complainant could not pay the rest loan amount on time. The government of India has also given some extension of time for recovery of loan but without considering such extension the Ops staffs come to the petitioners house and misbehave him with rude manner humiliating him & his wife publically demanding repayment of said loan for which the complainant suffer mental agony. It is further contended that, on 26.09.2022 the Ops served a pleader notice to the wife of the complainant for which the wife of the complainant suffer mental agony. On dt. 15.12.2022 the complainant went to the office of the Ops 3 at Kesinga and put his grievance but the OP3 angry upon the complainant abused on filthy language, screamed and forcibly ouster the  complainant  from the office of the Op 3 branch which is clear instance of unfair trade practice & deficiency in service on the part of Ops caused mental agony to the complainant. It is further alleged that, the Ops have charged compound interest, interest over interest and penal interest over the loan during the Covid-19 period disregards to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in W.P( c ) No.470/2020 i.e in Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association Vrs. Union of India.It is further submitted that ,the Op  without any information have seized the vehicle on 28.02.2022 which caused financial loss & mental agony . Hence, this complaint.
4. On being notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri S.Balan & Associates and filed their written version denying the complaint allegation on all its material particulars. However, admitted the facts that the Ops have provided loan to the complainant for purchasing the subject vehicle.
5. The Ops submitted that, complainant got default for repaying of the loan EMIs. The complainant has neither taken interest to clear the outstanding due nor had surrendered the subject vehicle accordingly, the OPs recalled the loan and even after receiving the recalled notice the complainant has not taken any steps to close the loan dues for which the Ops took back the peaceful possession of the subject vehicle on as is where basis as per the terms of the loan with due knowledge /consent of the complainant.
6. The Opposite Parties  further submitted that, the Ops have never  behaved in any rude  manner with the complainant  rather the Ops have always  requested the complainant to pay the EMIs in time to avoid any kind of legal complications . It is further submitted that, the complainant was  very irregular in paying his EMIs on  time .Till date the complainant has paid only 50 No. of EMIs  and not 51 Nos. as stated by the complainant and the rest  19 Nos. of EMIs  is still due to be paid by the complainant. It is contended that , the Opposite Parties had  give  sufficient opportunities to clear all the outstanding dues but the complainant has been  giving false assurance to repay the   same but failed upon which  the Ops acted upon as per terms &  conditions of the loan agreement and sent the termination notice of the vehicle loan to the complainant. It is further contended that, as the wife of the complainant  is the co-borrower with the complainant and issued post dated cheques to the Ops towards repayment of the said loan which got bounced on presentation as such  the pleader notice was served upon the wife of the complainant  is completely bonafied  and  it was as per the law. It is further submitted that, honoring the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no penal interest or any kind of compound interest had been charged upon the complainant till date. When the complainant  defaulted in paying 4 (four) Nos. of EMIs continuously, the opposite parties  acted upon the terms & conditions  of its loan agreement  and repossessed the said vehicle with the assistance  of some local police personals  with duly attested pre seizure and post seizure intimations in its local jurisdiction police station.  Hence, in the above circumstances, there is no cause of action arose to filed this complaint against the Ops as there is no any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of ops rather this complaint is  misconceived, false and baseless devoid of any merit deserve to be dismissed with cost.
7. Heard the Parties present. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the Learned Counsel of both parties present.
8. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed on the record, the points for consideration before this Commission are:-(i)Whether the Opposite Party Finance Company is justified in repossessing the vehicle of the complainant? and (ii) whether any penal interest or any kind of compound interest had been charged upon the complainant during moratorium period of Covid -19 ignoring the direction of the Apex Court of India and (iii) whether  there is any deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops caused injuries to the complainant?
9. The fact that, the complainant has purchased a vehicle  being financed by the OPs under   loan –cum -hypothecation agreement and that, the complainant got default in repayment  of the loan as per the agreement and that, on default the finance company/Op has repossessed the vehicle is not disputed.
10. Admittedly the Ops have provided loan to the complainant for purchasing a vehicle and the Ops have repossessed the subject vehicle as the complainant got default to repay the loan. Complainant has admitted the facts that, notice dt. 26.09.2022 was duly served to his wife prior to repossession of the financed vehicle on dt. 28.02.2022. The contention of the Ops that, the wife is the Co-borrower is proved from the unchallenged loan application & the copy of loan agreement there placed on record by the Ops.
11. The contention of the Opposite Parties that, the Ops have never behaved in any rude manner with the complainant rather the Ops have always requested the complainant to pay the EMIs in time to avoid any kind of legal complications but he was very irregular in paying the EMIs on time and that, no penal interest or any kind of compound interest had been charged upon the complainant till date remain un rebutted.
12.  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.
13. Law governing hire purchase agreement is well settled that”:- “The financier remains the owner of the vehicle taken by the complainant on hire, on condition of option to purchase, upon payment of all hire installments. The hire installments are charges for use of the vehicle as also for the exercise of option to purchase the vehicle in future .The financer being the owner of the vehicle there was no obligation on the part of the financer, to divulge details of the sale of that vehicle, and that too on its own, without being called upon to do so .”(NCJ  2020 page-778) .
14. Law is well settled that, mere pleading itself shall not construed evidence. Complainant is to prove the allegation made in his complaint petition but here in this case no cogent evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove the complaint allegation against the Ops.
15. We have found nothing arbitral or illegal on  repossessing the subject vehicle of the complainant by the Opposite Party /Finance Company on account of default of repayment of loan due against the complainant. The complainant has failed to proved his contention that, any   penal interest or any kind of compound interest had ever been charged upon the complainant during moratorium period of Covid -19 ignoring the direction of the Apex Court of India as cited by him so also, complainant has  failed to proved  any deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops causing any  injuries to him . However, it presumed that the Ops have repossessed the subject vehicle towards full and final satisfaction of the loan dues against the complainant, as such they shall be precluded  from claiming any  amount  further from the complainant.
16. Based on above discussion and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled to any relief(s) as claimed rather, this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.Ps. Hence, it is order.

ORDER

        This complaint is dismissed on contest against the OPs .No order as to   cost.       

Dictated and corrected by me.

                  Sd/-

        President

                            I   agree.

                                             Sd/-

                                        Member.

      Pronounced in open Commission today on 25^th  day of October  2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

      Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.