Per M.P.KASAR ,MEMBER

1. It is stated by  the complainant No.1 that, CC/21/315 have filed against opposite parties on the ground of opposite party No.1 is guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services in the facts and circumstances as set out in the complaint. Complainant No.1 prayed for to restrain the opposite party No.2 from cancelling the certificate of Registration of said vehicle No.MH-46BM-1350 from the name of complainant and issuing fresh certificate of Registration of the said vehicle in the name of the opposite party No.1. and or any other third person pending the hearing and final disposal of this complaint. It is also prayed to pass order and direct the opposite party No.1 to release the said vehicle No.MH-46BM-1350 and restore the possession of the said vehicle to the complainant No.1 so as enable the complainant No.1 to ply said vehicle and earn his livelihood and make payment of the regular EMI’s of the said vehicle and Complainant is also seeking order to restrain opposite party No.1 from selling the said vehicle to any third person.
2. Opposite party No.1 appeared and filed say  stating in that, complainant’s are not consumers because according to opposite party a person cannot claim to be earning livelihood if one is owing more than one vehicle. It is stated that, complaint suffers from mis -joinder of parties i.e. complaint filed against employee of the registering authority without imp leading registering authority also permission of the commission is not taken as opposite party No.2 address does not comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. It is stated that, complainant’s failed to clear the outstanding dues so opposite party No.1 constrained to issue pre possession notice and took possession  of the vehicle .It is stated further that ,thereafter the vehicle has been sold by the opposite party No.1 by following due process mentioned in the loan agreement & since some amount remained outstanding .It is alleged that, complainant do not want to pay balance amount of loan and therefore approached this commission and as vehicle has been already sold so the application has become infructuous  and liable to be rejected.
3. It has been noted from the perusal of earlier Roznama’s that opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written statement and say on ad interim application on 18/01/2022 and also observed that, complainant’s are remaining absent before this commission consistently from 15/03/2022.  So opposite party No.1 pressed application for to dismiss interim application as well as complaint vide dated 24/06/2022 however this commission pleased to pass no oral argument of complainant No.1 on his interim application on same date i.e.24/06/2022 considering continues absentee of complainant’s. Heard opposite party No.1 through Adv. Anita Marathe.  Perused ad interim application filed by complainant No.1 and written say filed by the opposite party No.1.opposite party No.2 remained absent despite proper service upon them   

ISSUES

          Findings:-

1. As to issue No.1 to 4 :-      Admittedly complainants had taken vehicle loan of Rs.32,37,060/- vide loan agreement No.CVLOOO100567007  from the opposite party No.1 for purchasing the Motor Vehicle bearing No.MH-46-BM1350 Tata 4923 cowl cabin chasis, Engine No.91c63773817 chasis No.MAT704154KACO6038 on 30/08/2019 also took loan of Rs.630000/- vide loan agreement No.CVL000100567083 for the Trailor Body for said vehicle. Admittedly both the complainant’s are borrowers of opposite party No.1.  Admittedly said loan is repayable in 55 instalments at the monthly EMI of Rs.84044/-.  It is allegation of the complainant’s that, loan documents were not provided till today by the opposite party No.1.  Admittedly said vehicle was hypothecated to the opposite party No.1 as security for the repayment of the said loan. Admittedly   due to poor business conditions the transport business of the complainant No.1 got badly affected and therefore the complainant No.1 could not pay regular EMI’s of said vehicle. Admittedly opposite party No.1 took possession of the said vehicle from the complainants on 20/02/2020.  Complainant’s preferred present application before this commission along with consumer complaint against opposite parties on 01/11/2021 and matter came before us for admission hearing on 18/11/2021 and on same day this commission pleased to admit complaint against opposite parties and issued notices upon opposite parties. It is pertinent to note down that, complainant did not pressed said interim application at time of admission hearing of the complaint and also remained absent constantly before commission till  final hearing of said application. However opposite party No.1 submitted written say along with written statement with documents on present application on same time i.e. on 18/01/2022 in the consumer complaint. From the perusal of Exh-B with complaint it has been observing that, said vehicle has been seized on 20/2/20 by the opposite party No.1.It is also noted that, complainant issued legal notices to opposite party No.1 vide dated 16/10/2021  requesting in that to not cancel of the said certificate of Registration in respect of vehicle as sought by the opposite party No.1.In the application the complainant No.1  have not stated anywhere that he was  willing  & ready  to  repay the  claimed amount of loan. The consumer complaint filed against opposite parties by the complainant only in view of and according to the complainant that, there is deficiency in services and unfair trade practices on part of opposite parties.   Considering aforesaid factual and documentary matrixes put forwarded on record the question arsing is that, if admittedly complainant’s have failed to repay determined EMI’s of availed loan due to their poor business condition of complainant No.1 this commission cannot interfere in the recoveries procedure adopted by the opposite party for recoveries of dues from the complainant. Considering the findings as aforesaid we did not find that, complainant have not made out prima facie case against opposite parties and failed to substantiate that, really due to negligence or misfeasance on part of opposite parties irreparable losses is causing to complainant. It is also noted from the written say of the opposite party No.1 that said vehicle has been sold by the opposite party No.1 however opposite party No.1 did not produce details of date on which opposite party No.1 sold out it. Complainant failed to prove that, balance of convenience is in favour of complainant to get ad interim relief as sought. Considering the findings complainant No.1 cannot seek the interim relief against opposite parties merely in view of consumer complaint filed against opposite parties, thus we answer issues No.1 to 3 as No. We pass order as per issue No.4  as follows :-
2.  
6698606.       ORDER

1. MA No.21/42 filed below section 38(8) of consumer protection Act 2019 is hereby rejected.
2. No order as to cost
3.  Order copy shall provide to the parties free of cost.