DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:
C.C. NO.252/ 2022
Chakradhar Rout, aged about 62 years,
S/o – Late Dhobei Charan Rout, . At – Bisuniapada, PO - Jhintisasan,
PS- Balipatana, Dist - Khordha – 751002
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
At – 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy,
Chennai – 600032, Through its Managing Director.
2. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,
At : Geetanjali Complex, Jayadurga Nagar, Bhubaneswar,
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant Sri K.C.Prusty & Associates (Advocate)
For the O.Ps. Sri A.B. Majhi & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 07/09/2022
DATE OF ORDER : 09/06/2023
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.1,30,000/- from the OPs in order to purchase a motor car. After availing the loan, he purchased the car bearing registration number OD-02-BK-7878. The complainant had to repay the entire loan in 36 EMIs Rs.4932/-. For the purpose of availing the loan, the complainant executed a loan agreement with the OP.1. It is alleged by the complainant that the copy the agreement was not supplied to him. He was paying the EMIs regularly but due to erratic method of calculation adopted by the OPs, the OPs claimed Rs.5,46,085/- from him. The OPs also did not provide the correct statement of account to the complainant. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in providing service to the complainant, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs filed written version stating therein that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. There is neither deficiency in service nor is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant, who availed the loan to purchase the car, did not pay the monthly installments regularly, as a result of which, there was a total outstanding of Rs.6,53,417.18 against the complainant. In order to avoid the payment of loan amount, the complainant has come to this Commission for reliefs to which, he is not entitled to get. It is further pleaded by the OPs that, as there is no merit in the complaint petition, it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the OPs in order to purchase a car. He defaulted in repaying the loan. The statement of account furnished by the OPs shows that, there is huge outstanding against the complainant. Had it been so that, the complainant was not provided with copy of the agreement, he could have come to this Commission just after availing the loan. But he came to the Commission for relief only after the dispute arose and the OPs took initiative to repossess the hypothecated vehicle. Considering 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 9th June, 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
