ORDER

 Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties present.
2. The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above alleging deficient service & unfair trade practice their on the part of Opposite Parties for forceful repossession of the financed vehicle without serving prior notice to the complainant.  
3. The Complainant has prayed for the following relief(s) :-

1.  To declare the service of O.Ps Company as deficient with regard to undue and untimely seizer of the bike with undue billing and hampering the normal life and business of the petitioner by deprive the right of the petitioners.
2. To direct the O.Ps company to return the prices taken by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd and the yard charge 4502/- by quashing the impugned bills of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.
3. Direction may be given to the O.Ps companies to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner as compassion for the harassment and mental agony which cause loss to the business, loss to the pace of mind and dignity.
4. To bear the expenses of travels of the day due to seizer point to office of Cholamandalam investment and finance company Ltd and to the yard ,MAA Manikeswari Parking Yard-MPY-BHA-306 on behalf of Irrigation colony of 14 no. Gali ,Bhawanipatna.
5. To direct the OPs company to pay Rs.10,000/-to the petitioner as cost of litigation expenses.
6. And any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in this facts & circumstances.

4.  The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that, the complainant is bonafide consumer of OPs company availed financial assistances vide Finance Agreement No.XVFPBPA00005331050 for purchasing a motor cycle .i.e PULSAR125DTS-I, Chassis Number :MD2B64BX6NPJ23593, Engine No.DHXPNJ91750 got it registered vide Regd.No. ODO8T5017.The complainant has been  repaying the loan in easy monthly installment to the Ops regularly. on 17^th  July 2024 while going to his duty , the Op without giving prior notice  has forcefully repossess the subject motor cycle through their agent  MAA Manikeswari Parking Yard-MPY-BHA-306  and took the vehicle forcefully to the seizure yard.It is alleged that, the Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. LTD, had not served any notice to the complainant prior to the seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment of dues of two instilments  only .The complainant arranged money  from his relative and paid the charged amount 16000/- in the evening at around 5 pm to the Op authority on the same day of its repossession and got release of his vehicle on the same date  from yards of the Op .It is further submitted that, due to such forcefully while the vehicle was on road ,the complainant could not accomplish his  task of the day. He got extra expenses for approaching the office of Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. LTD/Op, approaching to friends and relatives to get money. He is a young and respected citizen, was mentally & physically harassed and got  insulted by personals of the Ops and, incurred loss in his business for being not available physically on the business sight. The Op took payments along with two installments ie, @ Rs 3300/- i.e per instilments took 6600/- towards financing the vehicle with other charges i.e. AFC; 1178, PENAL CHARGES: 130/-, CBC charge: 3443/-, current month penal:111/-, recovery charges legal 36/-, Seizure Charges Repo: 4502. Total 16000/-. These charges excluding Rs. 6600/-, are extra burden to the petitioner. The complainant incurred financial loss, mental & physical harassment, emotionally sucked and socially lost his dignity due to humiliation in public place by sizing without notice while he was on road to his Job. Hence, this complaint.
5. The complainant, to substantiate his averment, has filed the following documents marked as  Annexure- 'a' to 'h' of his complainant:-

1. Payment Receipt: Wednesday, 17 July 2024 at 5:49 pm, by Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. LTD dt 17/07/2024.
2. Release letter by Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. LTD dt 17/07/2024 .
3. Registration Certificate of Vehicle:
4. Tax invoice of Kalinga Auto Services 2022-23 of BAJAJ, invoice No FIN-2W/22-23/230.
5. Insurance policy of the vehicle issued form MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Ltd Policy NoPO023400020/4113/119543.
6. Aadhar card of Ratanlal Sahu vide No. 386319658741.
7. Voter card of the complainant.
8. Payment statements to Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. LTD given by Cholamandalam investment and Finance Co. Ltd. All these documents remain unchallenged.

6. On being notice the OP appeared through their learned counsel Mr.M.R.Mohanty and filed written version denying allegation of deficient service & unfair trade practice. However, admitted the facts that, the complainant has availed a loan amount of  Rs.86,000/-from the Opposite Parties as per his application No.10655741 dt.19/01/2023 for purchasing subject  motor cycle and executed the  Loan -cum -Hypothecation Agreement No.XVFPBPA00005331050. It is agreed that, the complainant shall repay the loan with interest @ 22.35 % p.a in 36 monthly EMIs which started from 20^th February 2023 to 20^th January 2026 .The total agreed value repayable by the complainant is Rs.1,18,800/- in 36 monthly EMIs @Rs. 3300/- .The complainant failed  to repay the installments regularly in due time as per the repayment schedule. Accordingly ,  the OP issued final call Notice on dt. 11/03/2024 to the complainant requesting him to pay outstanding dues of Rs.74208/-towards full & final settlement of the loan within 10(ten) days and, upon failure to make full payment /surrender the vehicle the op shall be constrained to enforce their rights available under Agreement including taking possession of the subject vehicle. The   complainant /borrower could not responded  the notice .Accordingly the op served  a pre-seizure intimation to the local police/town police ,Bhawanipatna and took possession of the financed vehicle and, issued pre sale notice to the complainant/borrower .The Op had seized the hypothecated vehicle following due process as prescribed in the agreement and there is nothing deficient services or unfair trade practices there on the part of the Ops.   This complainant is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan and to escape from seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment and there is no any cause of action for this complain. Rather, this complaint is to be dismissed with cost.  
7. To substantiate their claim the Ops have filed the copy of following documents: - (i) Loan Agreement dt.19/01/2023,(ii) Loan Account statementdt.18/10/2024 ,(iii) Loan Application/Sanction Letter dt.19/01/2023,(iv), Loan demand notice dt.11/03/2024,(v) Pre-Seizure Intimation to local Police Station,(vi) Pre-Sale Letter to the Customer dt.18/07/2024 . All these documents remains unchallenged.
8.  After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties and their evidence placed on the record the points of consideration before this Commission is:- Whether the Opposite Party/ Finance Company is justified in repossessing the vehicle of the complainant and, whether there is any deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops caused injuries to the complainant? And whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?
9. The fact that, the complainant has purchased the subject vehicle being financed by the OPs vide Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement No.XVFPBPA00005331050 and that, the complainant got default in repayment of the loan as per the agreement there by the financer/Op repossessed the Hypothecated took it to its yard and,  latter on when the complainant paid the outstanding EMIs along with other charges the seized vehicle got released to the borrower/complainant on the same day of its repossession is not disputed.
10.  As per Sec.38 (6) of C.P.Act 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
11. No evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 is filed by the complainant to prove the contention of his complaint petition.The averment of the Op that, they have repossessed the Hypothecated vehicle as per the terms of the loan agreement on default of repayment of outstanding loan  giving prior notice & following due process as prescribed under loan agreement and, further the vehicle  was restored  to the complainant on receiving of outstanding loan dues along with necessary charges remain un-rebutted. Nothing proved that subject vehicle was forcefully repossessed by the financer/Op without giving prior notice to the borrower/complainant.
12. The borrowers /complainant are duty bound to repay the loan received from the OP as per loan agreement placed on the record and the Op has every right to repossess the hypothecated vehicle on default following procedure prescribed in the agreement.  It is proved on admission that, the complainant got default in repayment of loan availed from the Op even after receiving of notice with this respect from the Op there by the Op/financer repossessed the hypothecated vehicle and released it on the same day on receiving of outstanding loan dues attribute no deficient service or unfair trade practice there on the part of the Ops.
13. In the above facts & circumstances we found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the Op that , this complaint is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan & to escape from seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment of loan dues and, there is no any cause of action arose for this complain against the Ops.
14. This commission found nothing illegality or arbitrary by repossessing of the subject hypothecated vehicle on default of repayment of loan dues against the borrower/complainant.  
15. Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any negligence & deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as alleged in his complainant petition.
16.  Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief(s) as claimed.  Hence, complaint is dismissed against the OPs on contest. However, no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

 Sd/-      

President.

                         I   agree.

  Sd/-      

 Member

 Pronounced in open forum today on this 18^th  day of December ,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission .

The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

  Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.