THE DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.No.276/2021
Alok Behera, aged about 34 years,S/o – Giridhari Behera,
At – Gauda Sahi, PO – Chakapada,Tikatal,
Dist – Khurda, Odisha – 752062.
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- TATA Motors Finance Ltd.,Nanavati Mahalaya, 3rd Floor,18,
Homi Modi Street, Mumbai – 400001 , through Its Managing Director.
- TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD.,At : Plot No.98,
Keshari Talkies Complex, 1st Floor,PO/PS: Kharavela Nagar,
Unit – III,Bhubaneswar – 751001, Dist : Khurda,
Through its Branch Manager,
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant Sri K.C.Prusty (Advocate)
For the O.Ps. Sri D.P.Tripathy & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 01/12/2021
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, he availed a loan of Rs.17,25,233/- from the OPs in order to purchase a TATA- LPT- 1212 truck . The registration number of the said truck was OD-02-BC-3115.
He had to repay the loan in 84 installments ranging from 15/09/2021 to 15/11/2028. During the Covid-19 pandemic, as the truck did not ply, the complainant faced financial difficulties and was not in a position to repay the installments. The OPs threatened to repossess the vehicle. Besides it is alleged by the complainant that, the OPs did not supply the copy of the agreement to the complainant entered into between them. Furthermore, the OPs did not follow the guidelines of the RBI. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, he 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. He has not come to this Commission in clean hand. 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 defaulted in repaying the installments. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complaint bears no merit and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant had incurred loan of Rs.17,25,233/- from the OPs and under the terms of the contract, he is under obligation to repay it in 84 installments. But the complainant defaulted in repaying the loan. It is needless to say that, when the complainant entered into an agreement with the OPs for the purpose of incurring the loan, he had undertaken to repay the EMIs in time. But he commits default in repayment of the EMIs. Commercial hardship or personal difficulties are not the grounds to exonerate the complainant from repaying the installments. Right accrues to the OPs to repossess the vehicle hypothecated to them. There is no question of deficiency in service so far as repayment of the loan is concerned. So far as non-supply of copy of the agreement is concerned, 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 default was committed in repaying the loan and the OPs asked to repossess the vehicle in question, the complainant comes to this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Keeping in view the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, I do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and 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 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