Sri.K.Gopalan,President

                                   This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.90,500/- as damages and compensation. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: The complainant, has been running a bus for his livelihood. He has purchased the bus with the loan from the opposite party. The complainant wanted to remit back the loan amount only before the expiry of the loan period ie.22.11.2009. The vehicle is registered as KL.13 Q 117 in the name of complainant. But the opposite party seized the vehicle within 15 days of its registration. Complainant contacted various branches of opposite party in Kannur, Kozhikode and Ernakulam. But the employees therein behaved in an indecent manner. The only default of a single instalment is the reason of justification for the seizure. Though the complainant told the opposite party that he would pay the full amount opposite party was not amenable and disintended to handover the vehicle. The opposite party handed over the vehicle only after collecting an amount of Rs.67950/-. But at the time of taking the vehicle itself the complainant and the Power of Attorney holder, Manoj could see the serious damage on the front of left side of the vehicle\e. The damage was happened at the time when the vehicle was seized by the opposite party. This was brought to the notice of the opposite party at the time of handing over the vehicle itself. It was seen and admitted by the garage man. The complainant met an expense of Rs.10,000/- for the repair of this damage. More over the opposite party imposed an over payment ofRs.56,500/- for the return back the vehicle. Legally the complainant is not liable to pay that much amount. Complainant was forced to remit so much of over amount due to the threat and obstinacy of opposite party. So opposite party is liable to return that amount. More over there was full tank diesel at the time when vehicle was seized, but it was empty at the time when it was returned. There is a loss of Rs.4000/- in this item. Mr.Manoj has direct knowledge with these events. Complainant suffered financial loss and mental pain due to the unjustifiable seizure of vehicle. It is due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party that caused such a state of affair. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.56,500/- which the complainant forced to pay to opposite party over and above the amount legally liable to pay, Rs.10000/- that paid for repair of the vehicle, Rs.4000/- that of the price of the diesel and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony ie.altogether Rs.90,500/-. Notice was issued to the opposite party, but returned with an endorsement’ refused’. Hence it was considered notice served. Subsequently opposite party called absent and declared exparte. The important question to be decided is:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency in-service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed in the complaint? 3. Reliefs and costs. Documents Ext.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Points 1 to3: The affidavit filed by the complainant confirms with the pleadings, the complainant is the owner of the LP 15-10 Model Bus. It was purchased with the loan taken from the opposite party. The loan number is KNR 00005184058. The bus was seized by the opposite party within 15 days of the registration of the vehicle. As per the terms of the loan complainant is liable to complete the payment of loan only before 22.11.2009.Ext.A1 (a) shows the last payment date as 22.11.2009. The seizure of the vehicle before the due date of final installment whether justifiable or not is an important question to be considered. The complainant’s evidence shows that there was only a default of single installment that caused the seizure of vehicle while there is enough time to adjust the payment of installment before the expiry of loan period. The vehicle was seized immediately after registration. The opposite party is not legally entitled to seize the vehicle on the ground of a single default. There was no notice of any default issued by the opposite party to complainant. The entire transaction shows that only a single default in payment which in any case cannot be considered as an intentional default to escape from the liability of payment of loan amount. If he is a regular defaulter such indifference should have been considered as an act of intentional attempt to escape from liability. But the available evidence does not permit to come into such conclusion. So there is no justifiable explanation for the seizure of vehicle on such ground of default of a single instalment. This is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the nature of seizure reveals that the act of opposite party is a part of unfair trade practice. The complainant alleges that though the opposite party collected an amount of Rs.56500/- over and above the amount liable to pay. There is no evidence to prove such a payment. The complainant also alleges that there was damage on the front of left side of the bus which was resulted out of seizure and he sustained with an expense of Rs.10, 000/- for its repair. There is no evidence to show the damage. The complainant failed to produce even the receipt of workshop from where the bus was repaired. He could have at least examined the witness which repaired the vehicle. In such circumstances it is difficult to believe that there was such damage. The close analysis of the evidence shows that the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and part of unfair trade practice but the complainant failed to prove the actual loss he has sustained. Hence we are of the opinion that an amount of Rs.10, 000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.250/- will meet the ends of justice and pass an order directing the opposite party to pay the amount. Here it has to be pointed out that the refusal of notice on the part of opposite party, a reputed institution has created bad impression. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation with a cost of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.

Sd/-                                  Sd/-                     Sd/-

President                        Member                 Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant A1.&A2. Copy of the payment receipt issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for either side Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.