DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:
C.C.No.187/2022
Banalata Barik, aged about 38 years,
W/o – Sanyashi Barik. , At – Plot No.184(A), Kharvel Nagar,
PO/PS - Kharvel Nagar,Bhubaneswar,
Dist – Khurda …. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- Indusind Bank , No.701, Solitaire Corporate
Park, 167, Guru Hargovindji Marg, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400093, through its Managing Director.
- Branch Manager, Indusind Bank,
At – First Floor, Plot No.A – 29, Mishra Building,
Unit – 3, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
- RTO., Bhubaneswar, At – Acharya Vihar Square,
Bhubaneswar, 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 : 13/07/2022
DATE OF ORDER : 26/04/2023
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.47,000/- from the OP.2 in order to purchase a motor cycle. The registration number of the said motor cycle was OD-02-BD-4054. The OP.2 did not supply the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant. Further, the OPs 1 & 2 seized the vehicle forcibly due to default in payment of the installment by the complainant. The OPs 1 & 2, as alleged, did not follow the due process of law in repossessing the vehicle. Therefore, the repossession of the vehicle was illegal. The OPs 1 & 2 committed deficiency in service and practised unfair trade practice for which the complainant filed this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OP.3 remained absent and was set exparte. OPs 1 & 2 filed written version contending therein that, the complainant did not pay the installments as per the agreement and the loan account turned into NPA on 06/10/2020. As on 19/08/2022, there is an outstanding of Rs.87,880.93 against the complainant. The OPs 1 & 2 had not committed any illegal act, rather the complainant fails to discharge his contractual obligation. As there is no merit in the complaint, it is liable to be dismissed.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant had incurred loan of Rs.47,000/- from the OP.2 in order to purchase a motor cycle. The complainant is the registered owner of the said motor cycle. Annexure – 1 indicates that, the vehicle in question was hypothecated to the OPs 1 & 2. 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 when 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 1 & 2 taking a plea that he had not received the copy of the agreement. 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 1 & 2 and as such, the complaint bears no merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs 1 & 2 and dismissed exparte against the OP.3 being devoid of merit.
The order is pronounced on this day the 26th April, 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
