FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI REYAZUDDIN KHAN , MEMBER

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Mr Milan Singha purchased one goods carrier commercial vehicle from the OPs on  25.09.2019 by availing loan of Rs,34,00,018/-vide a loan Agreement No.ESSURA01007 subject to Hypothecation in favour of Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd,AJC Bose Road,Kolkata,West Bengal.The registration No. of the vehicle is NL01AE02016 dated 16.10.2019.The complainant has already repaid maximum no.of EMI’s. Due to the onset of COVID-19 and the consequent lockdown imposed by the concerned authorities, the complainant’s business came to a stand-still as a result of which, the complainant defaulted on payment of certain installments..The complainant further said that he is not having any sort of erroneous intention to create any mess in repayment of said loan which he took from the OPs for purchasing schedule vehicle.The representatives of the OPs are always trying to forcibly seize the schedule vehicle from the custody of the complainant.The complainant prayed in several occasions to one of the representative of the OPs for full and final settlement through one time settlement but the OPs did not accept the proposal.The complainant further said that the complainant is in a great financial crunch as he is not being able to run the vehicle freely due to regular threat and harassment from the OPs where they always trying to seize the earning source/livelihood. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has approached the commission for justice seeking relief as detailed in the complaint petition.

OPs did not resist the consumer’s complainant despite service of notice .No WV has been filed by the O.Ps within the statutory period.Thus the case runs ex-parte hearing against the OPs.

In support of his case the complainant has tendered evidence supported by affidavit and also relied upon documents annexed with the complainant petition. Complainant has also filed written argument. We have heard argument on merit and have also perused the record.

Points for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.

1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?
            2)   Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?

3)    Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3:-

All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant engaged with a transport business that has been his only livelihood. He took a loan of Rs,34,00,018 from OPs a Non Banking Financial Institute on 29/08/2019 vide loan agreement No.ESSURA0100.The complainant have already repaid maximum No. of EMIs .But due to Covid-19 world wide lockdown,he missed some of the EMIs for which the OPs have harassed him time and again and forcibly trying to seize the  schedule vehicle.

Here the vehicle in question  registered from Motor Vehicles Department Kohima,Government Of Nagaland.The complainant is running his business in Nagaland and the same is hypothecated from Kolkata,West Bengal.The complainant failed to submit any authentic document related to the bank financed its terms and conditions and the loan amount of Rs,34,00,018/,the repayment history and the total dues.No Advocate letter for settlement of the subject issue. Only submission of registration certificate is not enough for proper adjudication of the matter.The complainant took the loan from a private institution and it is the duty of the complainant being a good and responsible citizen of the country he has  to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions of the financial institution which was signed and accepted at the time of taking the loan.

  In view of the facts stated above we are of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to make out the case against the OPs and accordingly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs have not been established. 

As the complainant fails to submit relevant documents as mentioned in the body of the order,hence the complaint fails.

  Hence,                                                                     Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the OPs. No costs.The MA 836/2022 calls for no consideration and such the same is rejected accordingly.