Per Hon'ble Dr. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member

1. Aggrieved by the forceful possession of a tipper truck owned by an agriculturist, Shri Brahma Sampatrao kale, by Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, the financer of the tipper truck, on account of default in the repayment of the loan, the complainant Mr. Brahma Kale approached this Commission and filed this complaint with a prayer to declare the opponent guilty of unfair trade practice and direct it to pay compensation.
2. Brief facts of this case are as follows,

The complainant, Shri Brahma Sampatrao Kale, an agriculturist residing in the village Bhilgaon, Naka no. 2, Kamptee Road, Nagpur 400026, purchased two vehicles on 3^rdOctober 2012, tipper truck of Ashok Leyland bearing Vehicle make and model no. 2518 bearing registration Nos. MH 40 - Y- 3699 and MH 40-Y- 9990. The complainant obtained loans for both vehicles from the opposite party Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited with its corporate office at 27A, Developed Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 660032, and its local office at Shriram Shyam Towers, A wing, block no. 801, Kings Way, Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001. The complainant obtained loans of Rs. 22, 10,000/- for each of the vehicles on 30^th October 2012 vide contract Nos. VINGNG00695 and VINGNG00694. The repayment as per the Contract was scheduled from November 2012 till February 2016.The opposite party did not supply a copy of the loan Agreement and account statement; also did not reply to the letter sent by the complainant which the opposite party refused to give even acknowledgment the letter. The office of the opposite party in Nagpur was shifted to a new address without intimation to customers.

3. The complainant suddenly received a demand letter on 8^thFebruary 2016, from the opposite party demanding Rs. 8, 88,239/- as an overdue amount for vehicle number MH- 40 –y-3699. However, acopy of the loan Agreement and account statement was not handed over to the complainant despite repeated visits and telephonic calls by the complainant. The complainant was further shocked when he received a notice dated 28^th March 2017 from the opponent for loan agreement no. 695, stating that for the recovery of the amount, the opponent has referred the matter to arbitration, to an arbitrator Mr. S.S. Samuel, located in Chennai and the complainant received notice-cum-letter dated 12^thApril 2017 to attend the proceedings of the arbitration. The complainant was represented before the arbitrator by an advocate on 28^thApril 2017. After passing an interim order permitting the opponent to take possession of the vehicle, there were two hearings in the arbitration proceeding. The opposite party did not respond to the Complaint’s request of providing a no-dues certificate in the first loan Agreement and a copy of the second loan Agreement. According to the complainant, with respect to the vehicle no. MH-40-Y-3699 is concerned, substantial payment was made by the complainant and in January 2016, the only amount due was Rs. 2, 09, 280/-. Further, it was noted by the complainant that the demand was raised by the opposite party of Rs, 8, 20, 848/- as an overdue amount for this vehicle, with the exorbitant rate of interest, 36 % from 8^th March 2017. Aggrieved by the unfair practices of the opposite party, th