The main legal point established is that the burden of proving deficiency of service lies with the complainant, and in this case, the opposite party had not proved deficiency of service as per the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.

ORDER :

Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. (President)

1. This appeal is directed u/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the "Act") against the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned District Forum, Nabarangpur in C.C. No. 55 of 2017 wherein the District Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay the total deposited amount of Rs. 6,79,892/- against the vehicle in question immediately, inter alia to pay Rs. 42.000/- as compensation besides litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the complainant.

2. Appellants representing Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Limited were the opposite parties whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

FACTS

3. The unshorn details of the case of the complainant is that in order to maintain his livelihood he purchased a Renault Duster vehicle for Rs.11,00,000/- on being financed by opposite party No.1. A sum of Rs.7,50,000/- with usual interest was financed by opposite party No.1. Necessary loan-cum-hypothecation agreement was executed by the complainant with the OP No.1. The vehicle was registered under the R.T.A., Nabarangpur vide Registration No. OD-24-B-0099 in the name of the complainant. Out of 36 instalments the complainant paid 27 instalments but he did not pay the EMIs for the period from 22.4.2015 to 30.3.2016 on the ground that he was ill during that period.

4. It is alleged inter alia that on 23.5.2017 while complainant had been to Umerkote for his business, the people of opposite party-No. 1 repossessed the vehicle from the house of the complainant due to default in payment of the loan amount. When the complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 for negotiation, opposite party No. 1 demanded heavy outstanding money arbitrarily. On 19.7.2017 complainant received a letter from opposite party No. 1 demanding to repay the loan along with interest within seven days failing which the opposite parties would dispose of the vehicle on auction. Since the seizure of the vehicle was not performed in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI and the complainant was deprived of the vehicle resulting suffering mentally and financially, complainant filed the complaint before the learned District Forum.

5. Opposite parties filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable under law before the learned District Forum and the complainant has no locus standi to file such case. The Opposite parties admitted about the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement and extended the loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- with usual interest to the complainant on his request. It was agreed between the parties that as long as the loan remains unpaid totally, the borrower/complainant shall repay the loan amount along with interest in periodical instalments. Not only the loan amount would be paid but also the complainant would pay the interest along with 3% of balance principal outstanding and DPC in the event of default in payment of EMIs. Out of 36 instalments the complainant paid only 27 instalments. Thereafter, the complainant defaulted in payment of the EMIs. Since he was in default of payment of EMIs, the loan amount remained outstanding along with interest and other charges. In spite of request, the complainant did not repay the rest of the principal amount and interest. So the complainant in terms of the agreement took up the custody of the vehicle after duly informed to the complainant as the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan with interest. So no deficiency of service is attributable to the opposite parties.

FINDINGS OF DISTRICT FORUM

6. The learned District Forum after going through the pleadings and necessary documents filed by both the parties framed three issues such as (A) is the complainant a consumer against the OPs?, (B) is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in regard to the present transaction? an