STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA, CUTTACK FIRST APPEAL NO. 03 OF 2023 (From an order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in C.C. No.15 of 2019)

Prabin Kumar Lath, aged about 50 years, Working as Operational Oficer represented to Sky Automobiles, NH-5, Bhanpur, Cuttack, Odisha Appellant Vrs.

Santosh Kumar Verma, Ward No. 9, Purnai Basti, Kantabanjhi, Bolangir, Odisha -767039 Respondent Counsel for the appellant: M/s R.K. Pattnaik &A ssociates Counsel for the respondent : M/s. S.K. Panda PRESENT:

THE HON'BLE SHRI D.K.MOHAPATRA, OFFICIATING PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE MISS S.L. PATTNAIK, MEMBER Date of hearing - 20.06.2025 Date of order - 18.08.2025 ORDER SHRI D.K.MOHAPATRA, OFFICIATING PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack in C.C. No. 15 of 2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and counsel appearing for the Respondent.

3. The appellant in the present appeal was the Opposite Party whereas the Respondent was the Complainant before the District Consumer Commission.

4. The factual matrix of the case of the Complainant/Respondent before the learned District Commission is summaized below The Complainant/Respondent had purchased a Maruti Dzire VXI vehicle bearing Registration No.OD-05-AL-5951 from the Opp. PartylAppellant on payment of Rs.4,86,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Only) by availing loan. On 01.12.2018 the Complainant noticed some technical problem in the said vehicle for which he had taken the vehicle to the workshop of Opp. Party for rectification of defect. After some days when the Opp. Party denied to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant, on 15.12.2018 the Complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice to the Opp. Party. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Opp. Party Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the learned District Commission praying for a direction to the Opp. PartyIAppellant to return back the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-05-AL-5951 and claiming Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards his mental agony and harassment and as um of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards the litigation expenses.

5. On receipt of the notice, the Opp. Party/Appellant appeared and filed its objection to the interim application in shape of an affidavit thereafter, on 11.02.2020, the Opp. Party filed an affidavit stating that the objection filed by the Opp. Party may be treated as written statement. The Opp. Party filed the affidavit stating that the vehicle in question belongs to the complainant but it was given by his son namely, Anil Kumar Verma as a lien of misappropriation of cash by him while he was working as the cashier in the office of the Opp. Party, it is further contended by the Opp. Party that the said vehicle was handed over to him as a lien, they had not forcibly kept the said vehicle. According to the Opp. Party, the Complainant is a complete done by Anil Kumar Verma the stranger. Due to the ^{misappropriation} son of the ^Complainant, FIR ^{was lodged} by the Opp. Party ^{before the} Sadar ^{Police Station, Cuttack on 07.01.2019 vide P.S. Case} No. 14 of 2019 ^wherein Anil ^{Kumar Verma had confessed his guilt and had} assured to ^{deposit the embezzled money for which he had kept the} vehicle ^{bearing Registration} No. ^{OD-05-AL-5951 standing} in ^{the name} of his father ^{as security deposit.} Said Anil ^{Kumar Verma had} also filed ad eclaration ^before the Opp. party in ^the form of ^{an affidavit admitting} his liability ^{and giving an undertaking} to ^{return the said amount within} 15 days from ^{the date} of ^the affidavit. ^{The Complainant} by ^{suppressing the} fact ^{had approached before the learned District Commission.} Complainant has not ^{approached the} Consumer Commission ^with clean hands and as sucht he same ^{is liable to be dismissed with cost.}

The learned District Commission after hearing the counsels

6.

appea