ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                               JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties not to repossess the vehicle bearing No.OD-29E-3771, supply the copy of agreement and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony  the complainant suffered during the process and ha rasmse4nt and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation fees.”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant on being persuaded by the opposite parties entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 12.02.2018 to purchase the vehicle with agreement value of Rs.37,21,562 and the said agreement value will be paid in 53 EMIs having Rs.67,157/- of each EMI and out of which 32 EMIs have already been paid by the complainant. There are different rate of interest have been charged by the opposite parties without supplying the agreement copy. In the meanwhile, the Covid-19 pandemic occurred and created havoc in the society and the complainant suffered a lot including loss of business and as per the advice of the opposite parties, the complainant entered into refinance scheme with the opposite parties on 31.8.2021 for the agreement value of Rs.19,66,886/- which would be repaid in 48 EMIs at the rate of Rs.12,220/- per EMI starting from 21.9.2021 and the complainant has paid four EMIs due to Covid-19 business was totally halted and now the complainant is getting ready to start his business and intent to repay all the dues. But without giving agreement copy the personnel of opposite parties tried to repossess the vehicle.

            The opposite parties filed written version stating as under;

            The complainant intended to purchase a vehicle to use the vehicle for the enhancement of his existing running group business he had in due course approached to opposite parties for availing the requisite finance for the purchase of the said vehicle and the opposite parties after proper consideration thereof agreed to finance an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- to the complainant by way of a duly executed a hypothecation agreement to that effect on 31.8.2021. Hence as per the repayment schedule complainant has to pay the total agreement value sum of Rs.19,66,880/- including interest payable from 07.01.2019 to 07.8.2024 in 68 installments. Though after obtaining the vehicle the complainant has used the vehicle for his business and commercial purpose but not bothered to pay installments on regular basis. To that effect the opposite parties issued demand letters on several occasions which has not been honored by the complainant. This loan contract is categorized under NPA due to heavy default. Hence as per the statement of accounts in respect of the vehicle in disputes an amount of Rs.2,16,906/- is due as calculated on 26.7.2022, apart from the future payable dues Rs.16,06,320/- in the present value contract excluding other charges along with the other dues charges and penalties to be chargeable separately against the complainant, as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.    

            This Commission vide order dtd.24.6.2022 directed as under;

            “Heard the Advocate for complainant ex-parte. Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. Hence considering the circumstances, issue notice to the opposite parties to file objection if any but in the meantime the opposite parties are directed not to repossess the asset (vehicle) BHARAT BENZ 3123 R 8X2 5775 WB BS IV bearing Regd. No.OD-29E-3771 of the complainant on receipt of 30% of only pending EMIs from the complainant within 04 weeks  (from the date of receipt of this order) and also not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.28.7.2022.”

            It is alleged by the opposite parties that the interim order dtd.24.6.2022 has not been carried out by complainant himself which the complainant has not denied. In view of the fact that complainant having multiple vehicles used for commercial purpose has also failed to carry out the order passed by this Commission, we are not inclined to continue the interim order and the consumer complaint being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. No cost.