1. The complainant has filed this case against illegal acts of the O.P ceasing his vehicle without information.
2. The complainant being unemployed youth approached to the O.Ps in their local office at Dumka and O.P advised the complainant to start self business by plying goods, carrying vehicle. The complainant agreed to purchase the goods carrying vehicle. As such the complainant purchased the vehicle bearing registration no. BR10GA5721 (TATA ACE), engine no.- 2751D106CTYS35989, Chassis no. - MAT445064GYC04750 on 09.05.16 but on 15.03.18 without any information or notice while the vehicle was in services at Parbatta, Bhagalpur which cost price was Rs 456,200 wherein complainant paid Rs 143,000 as down payment and O.Ps advanced loan Rs 4,41,425 up to 20.07.17. At the time of purchase of vehicle the complainant paid Rs 143,000 as down payment and O.P advised loan Rs 320,000 and after process of loan agreement. O.P took signature on several papers some were filled and some were blanked at their local office at Dumka and asked to take delivery of vehicle from Vikramshila, automobiles (P) Ltd. at Bhagalpur.
3. The complainant took delivery of vehicle on 09.05.16 and thereafter complainant started to ply the vehicle and to pay EMI’s and other expenses per month in the loan no. 39618475 through A/C No. 50100142629530. In para 3 of the complaint petition he has given date and withdrawal amount and stated that     Rs 233654 were given to the O.Ps regarding above vehicle. As such the complainant invested the following amounts which was seized by the O.P. He has totally invested        Rs 4,41,425 as mentioned in Para 4 of the complaint petition. It is further stated that the complainant’s said vehicle was seized by police for the offences u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The complainant became engaged in the release process of the vehicle hence some of the EMI’s fall due about which the complainant’s had informed the O.Ps in their local office at Dumka and requested for cooperation  but the O.Ps lodged a complaint case u/s 38 of NI Act in Dhanbad court vice C.P. Case 2857/17 wherein this complainant was summoned to appear on 15.02.18 showing the date of occurrence on 20.07.17 in such a way that the O.P put hurdles in the path of earning and lastly without any prior notice the O.P seized the vehicle from Parbatta, Bhagalpur with the help of muscles man and took the vehicle in their own custody. And after seizing the vehicle the O.P started to send the demand notice dt. 19.03.18 demanding Rs 3,10,763 dues amount to close the loan account by paying once. 
4. Notice dt. 05.04.18 demanding       Rs 96,395 to close the loan account no. 39618475 otherwise O.P will put the vehicle in auction sale. The O.P are desperate, collected excess money from the complainant, put hurdles by filing complaint case, seized the vehicle as such demolished the entire business chain of complainant by seizing the vehicle. O.P has put the complainant to die by starvation and now demanding     Rs 3,10,760 in onetime payment. These all activities of the O.P are nothing but deficiency of services, unfair trade practices as well as cheating, fraud, violation of articles of Indian Constitution. As such the O.P are liable to pay the complainant compensation for mental agony, anxiety, loss of business, loss of name and fame for not less than Rs 2,00,000, cost for process not less than Rs 50,000 and are liable to return the invested amount of Rs 4,41,425 with interest @ 12% till realization from the date of inventory i.e; 15.03.18.
5. It is further said that cause of action arose on 09.05.16 when the vehicle was purchased, on 15.03.18 when the vehicle was seized by the O.P, on 19.03.18 when O.P sent a demand notice for Rs 3,10,763, on 05.04.18 when O.P sent another notice demanding Rs 96,395, on 07.04.18 when the complainant was failed for the offence of 138 of N.I Act lodged by O.P at Dhanbad vide C.P Case No. 2837/17. The complainant has claimed and prayed to pass the direction to the O.P to pay back the invested amount of Rs 4,41,125 with interest 12% from the date of inventory i.e; 15.03.18 till realization. Secondly, directing the O.P to pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation for mental agony, anxiety, loss of business, loss of name and fame. Thirdly, directing the O.P to pay the cost of suit Rs 50,000 and to pass any other order which may deem fit in the eyes of law.
6. The O.Ps appeared and filed his so cause/ WS on 30.11.18 stating therein that O.P no. 1, 2 and 3 HDFC Bank Ltd. the corporate body having its Registered office at HDFC Bank Ltd. House,  Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (west), Mumbai is licensed by the RBI to carry on the banking services in India and is widely acclaimed for its reputation and services. The borrower of the loan and lender are bound by terms and conditions applicable for the loan stipulated under the agreement.  It is further stated that this Answering O.Ps denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted hereinafter in this WS and nothing stated in the complaint should be deemed to be admitted merely because the same is not specifically transverse.  It is further submitted that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Forum and therefore same is liable to be dismissed u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act against Answering O.Ps. The complainant has not disclosed any cause of action to proceed against the Answering O.Ps and in absence of the same in the present complaint the Answering O.Ps shall be excluded from the present complaint as there is       miss - joinder of the Answering O.Ps.
7. It is further submitted that the present complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986. That since the complainant had availed only loan facility from the Answering O.Ps and hence the relation was that of debtor and the creditor and the law is well settled that where the relationship of the parties is that of debtor and creditor as in the instant case the CPT Act 1986 is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that onus lies on the complainant to show that the reliefs as contemplated          u/s 14 can be given for deficiency in services provided to the complainant. In the present case it is crystal clear that there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P or deficiency in services on the part of the Answering O.Ps.                           
8. It is further submitted that the complainant has purchased one TATA (ACE) on dt. 09.05.16 from Vikramshila Automobiles (P) Ltd. Bhagalpur bearing registration no. BR10GA5721 (TATA ACE), engine no. 2751D106CTYS35989, Chassis no. MAT445064GYC04750 which was duly financed by HDFC Bank Ltd. and it is further submitted that the said vehicle was seized u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition Excise Act, 2016 and due to seizure of the vehicle by the police the complainant couldn’t pay the EMI, filed a case u/s 138 of N.I Act bearing C.P case No. 2857/2017 and after receiving the notice the complainant paid the cheque amount and the said case was withdrawn by the O.Ps. It is further submitted that the complainant’s said vehicle was seized by police for the offences u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excised Act 2006, the complainant became engaged in the release process of the vehicle, hence some of the EMI’s fall due about which the complainant’s had informed the O.Ps in their local office at Dumka and requested for cooperation but the O.Ps lodged a complaint case u/s 138 of N.I Act in Dhanbad court vide C.P Case No. 2857/2017 wherein this complaint was summoned to appear on 15.02.18 showing the date of occurrence on 20.07.17 by such way the O.P put hurdles in the path of the earning and lastly without any prior notice the O.P seized the vehicle from Parbatta, Bhagalpur with  the help of muscles man, snatched the key from the vehicle of the complainant and took the vehicle in their own custody.
9. The O.P after ceasing the vehicle started to send the demand notice dt. 19.03.13 demanding Rs 3,10,763 dues amount to close the loan amount by paying once. Notice dt. 05.04.18 demanding Rs 96,395 to close the loan A/C No. 39618475 otherwise the O.P will put the vehicle in auction sale. In reply to above allegation the O.P has stated that from perusal of entire complaint petition it is evident that the complainant intentionally and knowingly with an intention to harass the Answering O.Ps brought this false and concocted complaint petition before this Forum. It is further stated that the complainant has availed two a/c one is saving account and another is loan account and the amount mentioned in the complainant petition is of saving account which is for personal use by the complainant. Complainant never gave regular payment against his loan liability.
10. He has also filed the statement and loan account as Annexure 1. It is further submitted that due to non - payment of installment and the cheque bounce of EMI the Answering O.Ps had issued notice u/s 138 of N.I Act but the complainant had not paid the cheque amount as such the Answering O.Ps had filed a C.P case u/s 138 of N.I Act which was disposed of on 27.06.18 after receiving the cheque amount. It is further submitted that the O.P sent demand notice on 12.07.17 mentioning there in, ‘we hereby recall your loan and require that you repay all the pending dues including fees and charges amounting to Rs 280693.72 within a period of 7 days.’ Xerox of letter dt. 12.07.17 is annexed as Annexure 2 and when the complainant had not regularize his loan account by making the installment properly, again a reminder notice was sent on 12.10.17 in absence of desirable responses to our reminders regarding the status of our loan a/c the bank  has withdrawn the credit facilities. The letter dt. 12.10.17 is also annexed as Annexure 3.
11. It is further submitted that complainant was intentionally and knowingly violating the banks request then seeing no other way out on dt 15.03.18, the vehicle was seized and a post repossession demand notice mentioning all the dues amount was send through bank on 19.03.18 directing the complainant to deposit the loan amount on or before 03.04.18 in terms of release of vehicle mentioning therein that if the complainant does not repay the outstanding dues within the stipulated date the bank will proceed with auction the vehicle without any further notice and bank shall deemed the consent of complainant for disposing the vehicle towards his liability. Repossession demand letter dt. 19.03.18 is annexed as Annexure 4.
12. It is further stated that the outstanding dues within the stipulated time then again a reminder notice dt. 05.04.18 was again to the complainant regarding the dues amount mentioning therein the O.P will be able to release the commercial vehicle of the complainant if the loan a/c of the complainant will be closed with giving a chance to mention total over dues Rs 96,395 with a direction to regularize the captioned loan a/c of the complainant. In spite of receiving these letters the complainant failed to comply the said notice. Xerox of remainder notice dt. 05.04.18 is also annexed as Annexure 5. It is further submitted that the complaint petition is admitted by the complainant himself in Para 6 on 19.03.18, a letter was sent to the complainant by the answering O.P mentioning parties there in, in the event you wish to obtain the release of the vehicle to yourself the total dues amount and overdue interest including repossession and go down charges amounting Rs 310,763.63p must be cleared in full on or before  03.04.18. The Answering O.P again sent another demand notice on 05.04.18, ‘please note that we will be able to release your commercial vehicle, further you are requested to close your loan a/c at the earliest.’ In spite of receiving these letters when the complainant failed to close his account then after waiting for 3 months this Answering O.Ps auctioned his hypothecated vehicle to discharge his loan liability. It is further submitted by the O.P to dismiss the present complaint case with cost.

13. The main point for the determination in this case that whether the complainant is entitled for the relief or reliefs as claimed !

                                           Findings

The complainant in support of his case has filed documentary and oral evidence both which are as follows. He has also filed affidavit of 2 persons as CW1 – Amit Kumar and CW2 – Bablu Yadav. Apart from that the complainant filed following documents also:-

    Exhibit 1 – is the photocopy of vehicle delivery order of Vikramshila Automobiles (P) Ltd. Bhagalpur dt. 09.05.16

    Exhibit 2 – is the photocopy certificate of registration BR10GA5721

 Exhibit 3 – is the photocopy of tax token of BR10GA5721

 Exhibit 4 – is the photocopy of certificate of registration

 Exhibit 5 – is the photocopy of certificate of Insurance issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

 Exhibit 6 – is the photocopy of statement of bank details of a/c no. 50100142629530 by HDFC Bank

 Exhibit 7 – is the photocopy of inventory of items in vehicles dt. 15.03.18

 Exhibit 8 – is the photocopy of letter issued by HDFC Bank dt. 19.03.18

 Exhibit 9 – is the photocopy of letter of HDFC Bank dt. 05.04.18

 Exhibit 10 – is the photocopy of realization order passed in C.P Case No.  2857/2017 u/s 138 of N.I Act dt. 07.04.18

 Exhibit 11 – is the summon and copy of complaint petition no. 2837/2017 issued by JM Dhanbad

 Exhibit 12 – is the tax invoice dt. 08.09.16

Exhibit 13 – is the photocopy of Aadhar Card of Amit Kumar

14. The O.P in support of his case has filed oral and documentary evidence both which are as follows :-

O.P witness No. 1 - Vivek Kumar. And also filed some documents which are as follows :-

Exhibit A – is the photocopy of statement of a/c no. 50100142629530. Total 6 sheets.

Exhibit B – is the statement of a/c issued by HDFC Bank and loan a/c no. 39618475. Total 4 sheets.

Exhibit C – is the photocopy of letter dt. 12.07.17 issued by HDFC Bank.

Exhibit D – is the letter issued by HDFC Bank dt. 12.10.17.

Exhibit E – is the photocopy of letter issued by HDFC Bank dt. 19.03.18.

Exhibit F – is the letter issued by HDFC dt. 05.04.18.

Exhibit G – is the photocopy of letter of HDFC Bank dt. 02.07.18.

Exhibit H/1 – is also the letter of HDFC Bank dt. 18.03.18 regarding post repossession intimation to the police station.

Exhibit H/2 – is the inventory of the items in the vehicle dt. 18.03.18.

Exhibit I – is the legal notice by HDFC Bank to Mr. Amit Kumar dt. 16.08.20.

Exhibit I/1 – is the photocopy of cheque issued by Amit Kumar dt 20.07.2017.

Exhibit I/2 – is the memorandum issued by HDFC Bank regarding dishonor of the cheque dt. 20.07.17

Apart from that the O.P has not filed any other oral or documentary evidence in support of his case.

15. From carefully scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence and documents adduced on behalf of both the parties and also after hearing the agreement on behalf of the Learned Counsel of both the parties it is admitted fact that O.Ps are corporate body having its          Registered office at HDFC Bank Ltd. House,                    Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (west), Mumbai is licensed by the RBI to carry on the banking services in India and is widely acclaimed for its reputation and services. And it is also admitted fact that complainant is the borrower and the loan and the O.P has given the loan to the complainant. As such the relationship between the O.Ps and complainant is of debtor and creditor. It is also admitted fact that complainant has two accounts one is saving account and another is loan account. The saving a/c no. is 50100142629530 and loan a/c no. is 39618475. The Exhibit A and B are the statement of saving a/c and loan a/c.
16. It is admitted fact by the complainant is Para 5 of his complaint petition that complainant’s said vehicle was seized by the Police for the offences u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excised Act 2006, the complainant became engaged in the release process of the vehicle, hence some of the EMI’s fall due about which the complainant’s had informed the O.Ps in their local office at Dumka and requested for cooperation but the O.Ps lodged a complaint case u/s 138 of N.I Act in Dhanbad court vide C.P Case No. 2857/2017 wherein this complaint was summoned to appear on 15.02.18 showing the date of occurrence on 20.07.17 by such way the O.P put hurdles in the path of the earning and lastly without any prior notice the O.P seized the vehicle from Parbatta, Bhagalpur with  the help of muscles man, snatched the key from the vehicle of the complainant and took the vehicle in their own possession. The main allegation of the O.P is that the complainant has failed to deposit EMI’s and he was defaulter regularly and whatever he has given the cheques for EMIs were bounced for which the O.P several times given notices to the complainant to deposit the EMI’s in support of this contention the O.P has drawn the attention of the court towards Exhibit C that is notice of the HDFC Bank to the complainant dt. 12.07.17 in which it was clearly mentioned that due to absence of any desirable responses the status of your loan a/c in the Bank has withdrawn the credit facilities. The Exhibit D is also the notice sent by HDFC Bank to the complainant Amit Kumar dt. 12.10.17 which is also regarding withdrawal of the credit facilities of the loan a/c.
17. Exhibit C is the notice dt. 19.03.18 in which the HDFC demanded from complainant Rs 310763.63p on or before 20.18 and thereafter the Exhibit F is the notice dt. 05.04.18 in which the HDFC Bank has sent again notice to the complainant Amit Kumar regarding his loan agreement and repayment of EMI’s. And also asked him to deposit Rs 96,395 towards his aforesaid loan a/cs. Exhibit G is the notice dt. 02.07.17 of HDFC Bank to Amit Kumar and after giving several notices regarding loan dues EMI’s to the complainant again the O.P sent a notice to the complainant by way of Exhibit g which is dt. 02.07.18 in which he has clearly mentioned that despite various reminders you have failed and neglected the whole of the amount outstanding with respect to the aforesaid loan a/c and when the complainant not paid the dues loan amount then on 18.03.18 HDFC Bank he given notices to the Police station for pre repossession intimation and Exhibit H/1 is also post repossession intimation to the Police Station dt. 18.03.18.          
18.  Exhibit H/2 is the inventory of the items in the vehicle at the time of repossession which is dt. 18.03.18. It is also admitted fact that vehicle was repossessed by the O.Ps but complainant alleged that the vehicle was snatched while he was plying at Parwatta, Bhagalpur without any notice forcibly from the complainant on 15.03.18. And support if this contention he drawn the attention of the court towards the Exhibit 7 which is the inventory of the vehicle dt. 15.03.18. The complainant asserts that he was regularly paying the EMI’s but some EMI’s was due because of seizure of the vehicle by the Police u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excised Act 2006. But no date was mentioned by the complainant in his complaint petition on which date Bihar Police seized the vehicle. It is also admitted fact that O.P has filed the case u/s 138 of N.I Act in the court of JM Dhanbad which was registered as complaint case no. 2857/17 in which the dt of occurrence has shown as 20.07.17. Apparently and admittedly this case was lodged for dishonor of the cheque given by the complainant to the O.P for the EMI’s of the vehicle. The Exhibit 6 is the statement filed by the complainant which relates to the saving bank a/c no. 50100142629530. From its perusal it is not clear that on which dare what amount was paid towards the EMI of the vehicle.
19. The O.P has also filed the statement of a/cs which relates to the complainant having a/c no. 50100142629530 as Exhibit A and the O.P has also filed the statement of a/cs of loan of the complainant no. 39618475. From perusal of Exhibit B which is the statement of loan a/cs of the complainant which is in four sheets. From perusal of last page of this statement there are details given in the statement that on which date which cheque and what amount was bounced due to insufficient funds. There are list of 20 no. of the cheques which was bounced due to insufficient funds.
20. And the cheques were during 05.09.16 to 15.06.18 but the complainant has not given any satisfactory explanation regarding the bounce of the above cheques. The O.P from time to time given several notice to the complainant to deposit the dues and overdue EMI’s but the complainant did not replied or responded to the letters of the O.Ps that is HDFC Bank.
21. From the aforesaid discussion it is crystal clear that O.P, HDFC Bank, was not in the default giving proper services to the complainant and there is mo deficiency of services on behalf of the O.Ps. Moreover, the relationship between the complainant and O.Ps are of debtor and creditor and there is no relationship of consumer. The conduct of the complainant in spite of receving several request, letters and reminders regarding the payment of EMI’s he never care and after due process lastly the O.P repossessed the vehicle and rightly clear the hypothecated the vehicle in discharge of his loan liabilities. We find no default and negligency on the part of the O.Ps.  
22. From the aforesaid discussion, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief or reliefs as he claimed. It is therefore,

                                         Ordered

That this case and the same is hereby dismissed without cost and the parties will bear the cost of their own.

                 Thus, this case is disposed off accordingly.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.