Orissa

Khordha

CC/208/2021

Sandhyarani Swain. - Complainant(s)

Versus

(1) The M.D., HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.C.Prusty

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CDR FORUM, KHURDA
KHANDAGIRI, BHUBANESWAR, 751030
 
Complaint Case No. CC/208/2021
( Date of Filing : 22 Sep 2021 )
 
1. Sandhyarani Swain.
W/o- R.K. Swain, At-HB-15, HB Colony, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. (1) The M.D., HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai.
HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower parel, Mumbai- 400013
2. (2) The Regional Manager, HDFC Bank, Bhubaneswar.
At-Plot No.A/62/1, Nayapalli, Unit- 8, Bhubaneswar-751012, Dist-Khurdha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SRI KRUSHNA CHANDRA RATH PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MRS. SUBHALAXMI TRIPATHY. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri K.C.Prusty, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sri D.P.Tripathy and Associates., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
 Sri D.P. Tripathy and Associates., Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 16 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

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

                                                -ooOoo-

 

C.C. CASE NO.208/2021

 

Sandhyarani Swain , aged about 35 years,

W/o Ranjan Kumar Swain At -  HB – 15, Housing Board Colony,

PO/PS- Paradeep, Dist – Jagatsinghpur, Pin - 754142

….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

 

  1. HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank  House,

Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,

West Mumbai - 400013, Maharashtra,

Through its Managing Director.

 

  1. Regional Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd.,

At – A/62/1, Unit – 8, Nayapalli,

Bhubaneswar – 751012, Dist : Khurda,

 

                                                                             ….     Opp. Parties

 

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

For the O.Ps.                           Sri D.P.Tripathy & Associates (Adv.)

                  

DATE OF FILING                  :         22/09/2021

DATE OF ORDER                 :         16/03/2023

 

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,  she availed a loan of Rs.26,83,000/- from the OPs in order to purchase a truck  of Ashok Leyland make. The registration number of the said truck was OD-05-AC-2740. The OPs were collecting installments through electronic clearance system. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant faced financial difficulties for which she could not repay the installments. The OPs threatened to repossess the vehicle. The OPs did not follow the guidelines of the RBI nor did they supply the copy of the agreement to the complainant. As it amounts to deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant, she filed this complaint.   

 

3.       On the other hand, the OPs filed written version  contending therein that, the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of C.P.Act, 2019. Besides, there is a contract between the parties and the complainant is under obligation to repay the loan amount to the OPs as per the agreed terms & condition of the contract. But the complainant did not repay the loan as  stipulated.  As on 30/08/2022, there is still outstanding of Rs.14,58,069/-  against the complainant. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

 

4        Perused  the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant incurred loan  of Rs.26,83,000/- from the OPs and under the terms of the contract, she is under obligation to repay it.  Commercial hardship or personal difficulties are not the  grounds to exonerate the complainant from repaying the installments. The evidence adduced by the OPs shows that,  as on 30/08/2022, there is an outstanding of Rs.14,58,069/-  against the complainant. In the face of such huge outstanding against the complainant, it cannot be said that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Non-supply  of copy of the agreement to the complainant is not all that vital to be taken as deficiency in service. Had it been so,  the complainant could have filed a complaint to that effect immediately after the loan was incurred and when copy of the agreement was not supplied to her. Keeping in view the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case,  I find that 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   16th  March,  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

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI KRUSHNA CHANDRA RATH]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRS. SUBHALAXMI TRIPATHY.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.