ORDER

DR. D.P. CHOUDHURY J., PRESIDENT The captioned complaint case is filed u/s 17 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter called the‘Act’)by the complainant against the opposite partiesfor settlement of their claim at Rs.29,10,275/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of loss of business, mental agony as well as harassment.

FACTS

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainantis that he in order to purchase a truck had incurred loan of Rs.10,50,000/- from OP Nos. 1 to 3 on 12.9.2005. There was agreement executed between the parties with the condition that the complainant would pay EMI at the rate of Rs. 27,075/-

which would be payable on or before 12th of every calendar month in 46 instalments commencing from 10.9.2005 to 12.7.2009. It is alleged inter alia that due to unforeseen business losses and expenditure the complainant could not pay three instalments. However, the OP Nos. 1 to 3 on 18.5.2007 without any prior notice repossessed the vehicle by engaging group of unholy persons after assaulting the complainant. It is further case of the complainant that the complainant has received a letter on 17.5.2007 by recalling the loan amount and then repossessed the vehicle on 18.5.2007. While recalling the loan the OP - financer mentioned that complainant is to pay Rs.7,93,904/- failing the payment of the same, the repossession of the vehicle was also threatened. After repossession the complainant tried to pursue the OP – financer for accepting the unpaid EMIs. But OP Nos. 1 to 3 did not accept the said plea.

Therefore, challenging the inaction of the OPs the complainant filed the complaint against the OPs.

3. OP Nos. 1 to 3 filed written version by stating that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has purchased the vehicle for business purpose which is admitted in the complaint itself. Therefore, the loan has been obtained for commercial purpose and as such the complainantcannot be treated as consumer under the Act. Further, it has taken the plea that the complainant has not taken any plea that he has obtained the loan for purchasing the vehicle to eke out his livelihood. The further plea is taken that as the complainant violated in payment of loan, they have repossessed the vehicle as per the agreement and sold away the same.Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. OP No. 4 filed written version stating that as per the procedure, he has registered the vehicle under the M.V.Act after transferring the ownership of the vehicle from the name of the complainant to JudhisthiraMohanty u/s 50 of the M.V.Act. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part regarding transfer of ownership in favour of JudhisthiraMohanty.

5. Before going further, it appears that the complainant during pendency of the complaint case has obtained the order of this Commission to release the vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.1,40,000/-. That order was challenged by the OP – financer videRevision No. 2465 of 2007 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in short (NCDRC) who did not interfere the order of this Commission but directed this Commission to pass fresh order by directing OP Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the loss suffered by the complainant if it is established that vehicle was sold prior to the order. In the meantime, the complainant has already filed a petition u/s 25 and 27 of the Act for violation of the court order.

6. However, at the instance of thecomplainant warrant of arrest was issued against OP No. 3 who is an employee of OP Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, complainant filed Revision Petition No. 2898 of 2007 before the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission. In the meantime, FIR has been lodged against Sanjay Dalai – OP No.3 and the JudhisthiraMohanty. At the time of hearing of the complaint case a question was raised against the maintain