DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:

C.C.No.410/ 2022

Ananda Jena,  aged about 33 years,

S/o – Late  Kanhu Charan Jena, At –  Sana Palla,

PO- Palahata, PS/Dist - Khordha

 ….    Complainant

-Vrs.-         

1.       Cholamandalam  Investment & Finance Company Ltd.,

(Formerly known as Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd.),

Dare House, 2^nd  Floor, No.2,

          NSC Bose Road, Parrys,Chennai-600 001, India through

          Its Managing Director,  

2.       State Head/ Authorized Signatory of Cholamandalam  Investment & Finance Company Ltd., (Formerly known as Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd.),

At-  Plot No.559,  Arnapurna Complex, ,  1^st Floor, Lewis Road- Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar - 751014, Dist : Khurda.     

                                                                             ….     Opp. Parties

For the complainant                Sri K.C.Prusty & Associates (Advocate)

For the O.Ps.                           Sri A.B. Majhi  & Associates (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING                  :         13/12/2022

DATE OF ORDER                 :         12/05/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that,  he had availed a loan of Rs.17,59,732/- from the OPs  in order to purchase a  truck.  After availing the loan, he purchased the truck bearing registration number OD-02-AV-2820. At the time of availing of loan, the complainant executed loan agreement, but copy thereof was not supplied to him. Although the complainant was repaying the loan in time, but due to erratic calculation, the total outstanding shown against him was huge one. Besides, on demand, the OPs did not supply the statement of accounts  to the complainant. Time & again, they threatened to repossess the vehicle in question. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint.   

3.       On the other hand, the OPs filed written version  stating  therein that, there is neither  deficiency in service nor  is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The  complainant,  who is a borrower, is a willful defaulter and he was not repaying the installments in due time. The copy of the agreement was provided to him at the time of releasing of the loan.  In order to avoid the repayment of the loan, the complainant has come to this Commission for relief although he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. It is further alleged  that, the complaint is not maintainable and it  deserves to be dismissed with cost.    

4        Perused the materials on record.  No doubt,  the complainant had purchased the truck after availing loan from the OPs and the vehicle purchased  by virtue of such loan,   was hypothecated to the OPs. Statement of  account shows that, as on 15/01/2023, the net receivable amount from the complainant was Rs.2,07,844/- and the future installments come around Rs.19,35,460.47. The statement of account shows that, the complainant had not discharged his contractual obligation in repayment of the loan.  The relationship between the complainant and the OPs is that of the lender & borrower.  It is the duty of the borrower to repay the loan as per the terms of the agreement. The complainant  defaulted in making payment of the installments as per the terms & condition of the agreement. It shows that, the complainant fails to discharge his contractual obligation. Of course, it is the duty of the financier to supply the copy of the agreement to the complainant. But if it was not done, the complainant could have filed a complaint to that effect immediately after the loan was incurred and a copy of the agreement was not supplied to him. Only when  the dispute arose due to non-payment of the installments,  the complainant came to this Commission for relief alleging deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs  taking a plea that he had not received the copy of the agreement and copy of the statement of account.  Such allegations of the complainant are ill-founded. Keeping in view the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case,  we do not find any deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs nor is there any unfair trade practice  on the part of the OPs.   As such, the complaint  bears no merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  hereby  dismissed on contest  against the OPs  being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the  12^th May,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.

                                                                                      (K.C.RATH)

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

               President                                                                                     

I agree                                                                            

(S.Tripathy)                                                                           

Member (W)                                                                             

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno