DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

BHUBANESWAR:

C.C. CASE NO.167/2022

Bubu Barik, aged about 22 years, S/o Basant Barik,

At – Chitaipur, PO – Mandar, PS – Gondia,  Dist – Dhenkanal – 759016

….       Complainant

                            -Vrs.-                      

1.         Mahindra  & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

            Gate Way Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai,

            Maharashtra, Pin Code - 400 001

Through its Managing Director

2.         State Head –cum Authorized Signatory,

Mahindra  & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

3^rd  floor,  AN Plaza, Plot No.1008,  Rasulgarh,  

PO/PS - Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar – 751010

Dist - Khurda.

3.         Branch Manager,

Mahindra  & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

At – Sasana, Dhenkanal , Dist - Dhenkanal  - 759001

                                                                                    ….       Opp. Parties

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

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

DATE OF FILING                :           17/06/2022

DATE OF ORDER                :           23/11/2023

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  incurred a loan of Rs.20,50,000/- from the OPs  in order to purchase one JCB 3DX BACKHOE LOADER. On 29/02/2020, an agreement to that effect was executed between the complainant and the OPs.  But the  copy of loan agreement  was not supplied to him.  Due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not pay certain installments. He approached the OPs to allow him some time to repay the loan. But the OPs were determined to repossess the vehicle of the complainant. The OPs have violated the guidelines of  Reserve Bank of India by not supplying the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant.  Repossession of the vehicle while the agreement period was still  subsisting will be  prejudicial to the interest of the complainant. Thereby the OPs have committed  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint. 

3.         On the other hand, the OPs filed written version  contending therein that,  the complaint  is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined under the C.P.Act. He has no locostandi  to file this complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The OPs have also never committed any unfair trade practice. The OPs have admitted that the complainant incurred a loan of Rs.20,50,000/- from them. But he defaulted in paying the installments as agreed upon. When the OPs tried to exercise their right under loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, the complainant knocked at the door of this Commission for certain reliefs.  The complaint is devoid of  any merit and  it is liable to be dismissed.

4          Perused the materials on record.  Admittedly, the complainant had  incurred  loan  of Rs.20,50,000/-  from the OPs.   He had to repay it as per the terms & condition stipulated therein in the agreement . But he defaulted in repaying the loan amount. The statement of account as on 13/09/2023  reveals that,  there was an outstanding of Rs.22,48,558/-  against the complainant.  In the face of such huge outstanding against the complainant, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice cannot be attributed to the OPs. When the loanee commits default in repayment of the loan amount, the right accrues to the financier under the terms & conditions of the agreement to repossess the vehicle hypothecated to them.  So the OPs  have acted in accordance with the terms & conditions of the agreement. The plea that the complainant was not supplied with copy of the loan agreement,  is not well founded. Had it been so,  the  complainant could have come to this Commission  immediately  after  execution of the loan agreement. But he came to the Commission only after the default was committed on his part and the OPs   tried to exercise their right under the hypothecation agreement.  Considering the facts & circumstances of the case in entirety,   this Commission finds 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  23^rd  November,  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