DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:

C.D. NO.374/2016

Fakir Charan Nayak, aged about 66 years,

S/o –  Late Musei Nayak . At –  Plot No.RAY-95, n/5-3, Behera Sahi,

IRC village, PO- Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khordha – 751015

                                                                             ….     Complainant

-Vrs.-

1.       Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

          3^rd Floor , At :- No.4, Lady Desika Road, Mookambika Complex,

          Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004,

Represented through its Managing Director.

2.       Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

At : Geetanjali Complex,  2^nd Floor, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar,

Dist – Khurda, represented though its Manager.

                                                                             ….     Opp. Parties        

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

For the O.Ps.                           Sri K.C.Mohanty & Associates (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING                  :         04/10/2016

DATE OF ORDER                 :         05/06/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that,  he had availed a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the OPs  in order to purchase a  Tata-407 Truck.  After availing the loan, he purchased the truck  bearing registration number OR-02-Y-0365.  The complainant had to repay the entire loan in 35  EMIs  @ Rs.5,860/- per month. For the purpose of availing  the  loan, the complainant executed a loan agreement with the OPs.  It is alleged by the complainant that the copy the agreement was not supplied to him.  Even he was not supplied with statement of account in respect of the financed vehicle.   It is further alleged by the complainant that, although he has already paid Rs.1,79,774/-,  still then the OPs are demanding a huge amount from him. He claimed for NOC/ NDC before the OPs but the OPs did not issue the same in his favour. Rather, they threatened to repossess the vehicle.  As the OPs committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, they are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence this complaint. 

3.       On the other hand, the OPs filed written version  admitting  therein that,  the complainant had incurred a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- from the OPs  in order to purchase a  Tata-407 Truck. Besides, he had also incurred insurance loan from the OPs. It is pleaded by the OPs that, the complainant was very irregular  in payment of installments and as per the statement of account, he was liable to pay Rs.1,99,181.22 as on 04/04/2017.  There was  neither deficiency in service nor was  there any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  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.

4        Perused the materials on record.  Admittedly, the complainant had incurred  loan from the OPs. The complainant admits in his complaint petition that he had to repay the loan in 35 EMIs @ Rs.5,860/-. By seer arithmetic calculation, it is clear that, he had to pay Rs.2,05,100/- . Instead thereof, he had paid Rs.1,79,774/-. Thereby he has paid less than the amount which he initially agreed to pay to the OPs.  Besides he had incurred additional loan from the OPs. From the written version filed by the OPs, it is clear  that as on 04/04/2017, there was an outstanding of Rs.1,99,181.22 against the complainant. So the complainant appears to be a defaulter. Had it been so that,   the complainant was not provided with copy of the agreement, he could have come to this Commission immediately after execution of the loan agreement. But he came to the Commission for relief only after the dispute arose and the OPs took   steps 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  5^th 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