Fact of the case in brief is that the complainant purchased a truck by refinancing through Op2 bearing registration No.OR09Q7219 and Rs.12,10,169/- was sanctioned towards loan amount which was repayable in 41 installments. The complainant brought the vehicle on road after making other expenditures. Till the filing of the case the complainant has paid Rs.7,74,000/- . On dt.26.11.2021 the said vehicle was repossessed by finance company without any prior notice and also Op has issued a presale notice against the vehicle or to pay Rs.11,81,877/-. For such illegal act of Ops the complainant was mentally harassed and filed this case alleging deficiency of service by Ops and prays to release the vehicle and prayed for compensation of Rs.12,94,000/-.Towards financial loss, mental harassment and cost of litigation.
Under the above complain the case was admitted, notice issued to Ops. On dt.16.03.2022 one interim order was passed directing the Ops to release the vehicle as per the order of State CDR, Commission, Odisha to hear the matter in R.P-06/2022.
The Ops appeared through their counsel but Op1,2 &4 could not filed their w/v within stipulated period. So Ops are debarred from filing w/v and set Ex-parte. The notice of Op3 was returned mentioning not clear address. The complainant could not take steps to file fresh requisites for Op3. Only objection was filed by Ops in I.A No.04/2021.
The complainant has filed following documents to substantiate his case
- Photocopy of Letter dt.20.12.2017 of HDB financial service.
- Photocopy of Loan application
- Photocopy of Loan agreement
- Photocopy of Money receipts.
- Photocopy of R.C Book
In the objection filed by Ops in I.A No.04/2021 it is clearly mentioned that interim order was arbitrarily passed and the forum has no jurisdiction and there is no cause of action arose as because the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha has directed the complainant in WP(C) case on 10460/2019 wherein petitioner was directed to pay 50% outstanding amount within 3 weeks and after receiving the amount Op released the vehicle after that petitioner has never deposited any EMI. It is also mentioned that one Arbitration case bearing No.ARC/HDB/VL/2326/2018 was filed against the petitioner and arbitral award was passed on 09.07.2019. So the consumer court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
On the above pleadings the following issues are farmed to decide the case.
- Whether the case is maintainable?
- Whether any cause of action arises on this case?
- Whether Ops have made any deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief sought for?
FINDINGS
The above issues are linked with each other so they are discussed jointly. It is found from the case record that both the parties are absent in this commission for so many dates. So, the case is decided on merits. It is clear that after release of vehicle no steps is taken by the parties. It is found from the objection filed by Ops that one arbitration case was disposed on dt.09.07.2019 against the complainant and arbitral award has been passed against the complainant for the vehicle bearing registration No.OR09Q7219. So this commission has no jurisdiction to decide the case. So this case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action arises in this case. So the Ops have not made any deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Hence Order.
ORDER
The complaint case being devoid of merits is dismissed without any cost. The Interim Order passed earlier is vacated.
