Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/30/2017

Sudama Prasad Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-Magma Fincorp Limited - Opp.Party(s)

sri. B.K.Pattanaik & Bikash Kumar & associates

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 30/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Sudama Prasad Yadav,

S/O- Bhubaneswar Prasad Yadav

At-Dharmasala Gali, Near Vaisnodevi Temple, Khetrajpur,

Po/PS-Khetrajpur

Tahl/Munsifi/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                   …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. Magma Fincrop Limited

Regd Officer-24 Park Street,

Kolkata-700016.

2. Branch Manager,

Magma Fincorp Limited,

At/Po-Budharaja(Near United Bank)

Dist-Sambalpur                                                             ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-     

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. B.K.Pattanaik, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                     :-         Sri A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :05.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 01.08.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has taken finance of one Truck bearing No. OR 15L 6229 in the name of his wife Anita Devi Yadav in the year 2012 from the OPs who are Financing Company. As per Agreement dtd 21.02.2012, the Complainant’s wife Anita Devi Yadav signed the Agreement documents and this Complainant is the guarantor for the agreement. A sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been financed by the Ops with monthly installments of Rs. 24,144/- per month for a period of 4 year starting from 10.03.2012 to 09.12.2015, total 46 in numbers with equal monthly installments of Rs. 24,144/-. As per the terms and condition the Complainant has to payback Rs. 11, 01,697/- to the Ops towards financed amount with interest within the stipulated period. The Complainant paid all the installments within stipulated period and the finance amount along with the interest Rs. 11, 01,697/- to the Ops. When the Complainant went to the financier for obtaining No dues Certificate, they demand further a sum of Rs. 1, 78,413/-. When the Complainant asked to the OP the reasons for demanding such a huge amount whereas he has already paid the installment amount within the stipulated period, the OP replied that this is the over drawn amount. When an agreement has been signed between the parties at that time the Ops never intimate about the extra interest over the delay payment and delay to the what extent 5 days, 10 days or one month, but the Complainant has paid every month and the full amount of installment has been paid within the stipulated period. The Complainant being a poor man running a truck and maintaining his family, if again such a huge amount of Rs. 1,78,413/- will be demand which is illegal, unjust, improper then the Complainant will be ruined. After paying all the installments or financed amount within the stipulated period, still then by demanding a sum of Rs. 1, 78,413/- the Ops are in an ill intention to seize the truck of the Complainant.
2. The version of the O.Ps is that the  is not a Consumer within the meaning of the Consumer as defined U/S. 2(1)(d)(i) & (II) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per the said provision, “Consumer” inter-alia, means a person who has bought goods for a consideration for his own use or for use by other persons but does not include a person who obtains such goods for re-sale or for any commercial purpose. The complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant has signed the loan agreement with the OP whwas contains the clause for Arbitration where all the disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator. The complaint is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for Arbitration where all the disputes, differences, claims and questions whatsoever arising out of the said agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitrator, Dispute between the parties was referred to L’d arbitrator and learned arbitrator vide its Award dt 11/06/2014 awarded a sum of Rs. 5, 92,180/- in favour of the OP. The transaction between the parties is a contract where both parties have to perform their part of obligation. As per the contract bearing No. PG/0020/R/10/000032 dtd. 10/02/2012, the cost of the vehicle is Rs. 900000/- in which an amount of Rs. 704995/- was financed by OP. The Complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 396702/- towards the finance charges. Hence Complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs. 1101697/- towards the contract value. The said contrct value amount was to be repair in 46 equated monthly installments which is to be paid before 01/12/2015. Complainant has agreed to pay the installments in a stipulated time failing which Complainant has further agreed to pay the delayed payment charges on the respective installment amount, which the Complainant failed to do so and accordingly the dispute refferred to the learned arbitrator as per the terms of the agreement signed by the Complainant. It is admitted by the Complainant that his wife Anita Devi Yadav is the customer of the OP, who has purchased the commercial vehicle. As per his version the complaint Petition should be dismissed as the same filed by a person who is not even a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer as defined U/S. 2 (1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per the said provision’”Consumer” iner-alia, means a person who has bought goods for a consideration for his own use or for re-sale or for any commercial purpose.

 

3. From the above it is found that the Complainant is not a consumer as he has not purchased the vehicle from the OP, whereas his wife Anita Devi Yadav is the customer of the OP. Further there is already an arbitration proceeding against the matter. So it is ordered that the case is dismissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 1st day of Aug, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.