Ashok Bran, President—This Order shall dispose of First Appeals No.282 of 2005 arising from C.D. Case No.4 of 2005 and First Appeal No.284 of 2005 arising out of C.D. Case No.112 of 2004, filed by the appellant/complainant before the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’ for short) against separate Orders dated 30.06.2005 whereby the State Commission has dismissed the Complaints filed by the appellant. Since the facts of both the Appeals are identical, we dispose them of by a common Order.

Facts of First Appeal No. 282 of 2005

Appellant/complainant applied for sanction of Rs. 7,65,000/- to I.C.I.C.I. Bank-respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short) to enable her to purchase a Leyland Truck Chassis. Respondent, on consideration of the application, sanctioned the aforesaid amount out of which appellant purchased the vehicle. According to the appellant, she had been paying the monthly installments of Rs. 27,054/- regularly till 30.12.2004. That she had paid about 27 monthly installments and a sum of Rs.54,108/- was remaining to be repaid. Because her husband bedridden, there was default in payment of monthly installment. That taking advantage of the situation he respondent was threatening to seize the vehicle although there was no ground for seizure of the vehicle.

3. After Notice, the Complaint was listed before the State Commission on 18.01.2004. Respondent put in appearance on Caveat. By an Interim Order, the State Commission directed that in the event of appellant depositing a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ -without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the vehicle be released further favour .

4. Respondent, later on filed its Written Statement. It was stated that the respondent had advanced a sum Rs.7,65,000/- as loan to the appellant which was to be repaid in 35 equated monthly installments (EMI’s) @ Rs.27,054/- per month. That the appellant was a chronic defaulter and did not pay the installments regularly, as a result he fell in arrears to the extent of Rs.1,08,216/-. That the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is of commercial nature. Non-payment of the installments due at appropriate time enables it to seize the vehicle.

5. During the course of arguments, respondent submitted a calculation sheet indicating the outstanding dues lying against the appellant as on 06.06.2005. The break-up of the dues is hereunder:

6. State Commission deleted the litigation charges of Rs. 5,000/- and directed the appellant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,58,413/- by 15.07.2005 to the respondent. In case the appellant fails to pay the same by the stipulated date, respondent shall be at liberty to seize the vehicle again.

Facts of First Appeal No. 284 of 2005

7. Appellant/complainant applied for sanction of loan to I.C.I.C.I. Bank-respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short) to enable her purchase a Leyland Truck Chassis. Respondent, on consideration of the case, executed a Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement which was duly signed by the appellant. Appellant purchased a truck bearing no. OR-05-0235 out of the finance sanctioned in her favour amounting to Rs.6,47,000/- which was to be repaid in 35 equated monthly installments (EMI’s) @ Rs.22,201/-. According to the appellant, she had repaid a major part of the loan amount by the time the vehicle was seized for default and only 3 installments, which approximately came to Rs.66,603/-, remained to be paid.

Appellant filed the Complaint on 17.12.2004. The Complaint was admitted on 21.12.2004. Copy of the Complaint was directed to be served on the Counsel for the respondent who appeared and submitted that as matter of fact, at the time of seizure of the vehicle, a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- was outstanding against the appellant. In view of this, the State Commission directed the respondent to release the vehicle on payment of the outstanding amount. When th