THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO.227/ 2022

Sunakar Parida, aged about 52 years,

S/o Narahari Parida, At/PO -  Haridaspur,

Ps/Dist – Jajpur - 755024

….     Complainant

          -Vrs.-

1. HDB Financial Services Ltd.,

At - Radhika 2^nd Floor, Law  Road,

     Navrangpura, Ahmedaba, Gujarat – 380009,

Through its Managing Director. 

2. State Head/ Authorized Signatory, HDB Financial Services Ltd.,

At Plot No.358/3478 -  357/3477,

Jaydev Vihar, Unit – 16, 

Near Biju Patnaik College,  Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khurda

3. R.T.O., Chandikhole, At/PO/PS- Chandikhole,

Dist – Jajpur

                                                                              ….    Opp. Parties

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

For the O.Ps.                           :         Exparte

DATE OF FILING                  :         26/08/2022

DATE OF ORDER                 :         27/01/2023

ORDER

S.TRIPATHY, MEMBER (W)

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

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, he purchased a truck  bearing registration number OD-04-Q-3175 by availing loan of Rs.14,37,409/- from the OP.2. An agreement to that effect was executed between the OP.2 and the complainant on 28/10/2020. As alleged by the complainant, the financier  did not provide him with a copy of the agreement entered into between them. When he insisted  for the agreement,  the financier told him the number of EMIs to be paid, the quantum of each EMI and the period during which such EMIs are to be paid. It is further alleged by the complainant that he had not defaulted in repaying the loan installments but illegally, the financier repossessed the vehicle (Truck). When he contacted the financier in this regard, the financier provided a statement of account to him and that statement of account reveals that, there was overdue installment of Rs.2,23,200/-.  It is further alleged by the complainant that without observing the due process of law, the financier repossessed the vehicle in question. Hence this complaint.        

3.       On the other hand, the OPs  did not appear in the case, as such they were set exparte and exparte hearing is taken up on 12/01/2023.

4        Perused the materials on record.  It is admitted fact that, the complainant incurred loan of  Rs.14,37,409/- from the OP.2. Then it is the duty of the complainant to repay the loan in time. He did not repay the loan in time. The complaint petition itself shows that when he contacted the financier, the financier  gave him the statement of account showing overdue installment of Rs.2,23,200/-. It implies that the complainant defaulted in repayment of the loan. On account of such default, right accrues to the financier to repossess the truck which was hypothecated to him.  No letter of demand is required prior to the seizure / repossession of the vehicle. It is the legal right  of the creditor  to repossess the hypothecated goods when payment in respect of that hypothecated goods is not received by him. The plea of the complainant to the effect that he was not provided with a copy of the agreement, is meaningless,  because he should have come to this Commission for deficiency in service when he was not provided with a copy of the agreement immediately after execution of the agreement. But he did not do so. When the dispute arose due to non-payment of the installment amount, he came to this Commission and took a plea that he was not provided with copy of the agreement . It is well within his knowledge how many installments  he had to pay, what is the quantum of each installment and what is the span during which he had to repay all the EMIs . When all such facts were within the knowledge of the complainant, non-supply of copy of the agreement to him, is not all that matters.  Be that as it may, the complainant had incurred the loan and he defaulted in repayment of the loan. The financier has the right to repossess the vehicle and to sell it observing due formalities  prescribed under law. Under such situation, the reliefs  claimed for by the complainant are not sustainable in the eye of law. The financier cannot be permanently restrained from selling out the vehicle in question because he has to realize the loan amount out of that sale proceeds.  Considering the facts & circumstances in its entirety, we are of the view that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the financier, as such, the complaint bears no merit.    Hence it is ordered.      

ORDER

The complaint is  dismissed  exparte against the OPs being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the  27^th January,  2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member  of this  Commission.

                                                                            (S.TRIPATHY)

                                                                               MEMBER(W) 

Dictated & corrected by me

           Member ( W)

                                                                             I agree

                                                                                                                                                 President   

                                                                             (K.C.RATH)

Transcribed by Smt.M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno :