Orissa

Kendujhar

66/2014

Sri Pabitramohan Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Branch Head, Magma Fin. Corp. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sudhansu Sekhar Panda

29 Oct 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 66 OF 2014

Sri Pabitramohan Pradhan, aged about 35 years,

S/o- Ugrasen Pradhan,

At-Jhumpudi Harting, Joda,

Post/P.S- Joda, Dist- Kendujhar…………………………Complainant

                           Vrs.

1. Branch Head, Magma Fincorp. Limited,

At- Singh Market Complex, College Square,

1^st Floor, P.O-Kendujhargarh,

P.S-Town, Dist- Kendujhar

2. Branch Head, Magma Fincorp. Limited,

At- Nirmal Plaza, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar,

Dist- Khurda (Odisha)

3. Magma Fincorp. Limited,

At- 24 Park Street, P.O/P.S- Park Street,

Kolkata (West Bengal) .………………………………………Op. Parties                                               

 

PRESENT: - Shri A.K. Purohit, President

                     Mrs B. Giri,         MEMBER (W)

                     Sri S.C. Sahoo,  MEMBER

 

 Advocate for the complainant- Sri S.S. Panda & N.C. Das

Advocate for the Ops                - Sri A.K. Pattnaik & R.R. Rana

___________________________________________________________________  

Date of Hearing - 23.09.2015                                              Date of Order- 29.10.2015

___________________________________________________________________

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member-This is a complaint praying for a direction to Ops to provide NOC in respect of the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-09-F-1675 (Tata Tipper) and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost and not to reposes the alleged vehicle till disposal of the case.

    The brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased the alleged Tata Tipper OR-09-F-1675 by availing finance from the Ops to the tune of Rs.6,40,000/- and to be repayable in total Rs.8,00,800/- with interest to the Ops in 34 installments by the complainant and the complainant had already paid Rs.8,25,800/- as on 30/11/2007 and demanded to provide NOC to Op-1 in respect of his vehicle but the Op-1 denied to provide NOC rather demanded Rs.5,15,716.30p and being aggrieved intimated to Op-2 and Op-3 and all the Ops decided to provide NOC after depositing Rs.50,000/- and the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- on 01/08/2012 and the Ops failed to provide NOC at the time of necessary for selling of the old Tipper at the peak time and again the complainant appraised to the Ops for issue of NOC and the Ops demanded further Rs.20,000/- to close the loan A/C and to provide NOC and accordingly, the complainant deposited further Rs.20,000/- on 14/05/2013 and obtained receipt of payment wherein the Ops have mentioned as “Closer” (in remarks column of the closer receipt). But the complainant disappointed for non issue of NOC and as such the act and activities of Ops is nothing but deficiency of service. Hence, this case -

 

                   In support filed:

1. Copy of the R.C. Book of the Tata Tipper - 2 sheets

2. Loan A/C Statement dt.03/11/2014 - 2 sheets

3. Copy of Closer Receipt dt.14/05/2013 - 1 sheet

 

     After service of notice to Ops the Ops appeared and filed their written version through their learned counsel. The written version of the Ops depicts that the complainant is not a consumer U/s. 2 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of C.P Act 1986 and the relationship between complainant and these Ops are that of “borrower” and “lender” and the present dispute arose is a Civil Dispute and not of Consumer Dispute and not maintainable as per loan agreement – as there is a Clause of Arbitration wherein disputes, difference claims & questions whatever arose out of the loan agreement shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator and the present dispute is not maintainable since Award had been passed on dt.18/01/2011 for awarded sum of Rs.1,28,168/- in favour of these Ops and the transaction between the parties is out of contract and both parties have to perform their part obligation. As per contract between the parties, the complainant has agreed to pay in toto Rs.8,00,800/- out of which Rs.6,40,000/- (Finance Amount + Rs.1,60,800/- Finance Charges) in 34 equated monthly installments are to be paid on or before 31/10/2007 the stipulated time and also agreed to pay Delay Payment Charges of which the complainant failed to do so being unpaid cunningly filed this complaint -

    

                   In support filed:

1. Copy of Decision in Revision Petition No. 97/2012 passed by Hon’ble State Commission Odisha, Cuttack - 5 sheets

2. Copy of Arbitration Award passed by Arbitrator on dt.18/01/2011 along with notice of Arbitrator - 11 sheets

3. Copy of minutes of the 3^rd & final hearing of Award - 1 sheet

4. Copy of Loan cum Hyp. Agreement on 31/12/2004 - 7sheets

5. Copy of Decision passed by Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi on The Installment Supply Ltd. Vrs. Kangra Ex- Serviceman Transport Co. arising out of Revn. Petition No.2363/2002 decided on 05/10/2006 - 3 sheets

 

     Heard both the learned counsels of the contesting parties and perused the materials/ documents available in record. It is not disputed by either parties regarding finance of the Tata Tipper by Ops. The only dispute is whether the present case is maintainable after passing of Arbitration Award as well as the present complainant is whether consumer or not and whether entitle for NOC is genuine or not ? is the only adjudicating matters for consideration.

    The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per loan cum hypothecate agreement the complainant has already been paid Rs.8,25,800/- towards his loan, interest & delay payment charges as on 30.11.2007. But the Ops have arbitrarily demanding a sum of Rs.5,15,716.30p for issue of NOC pertaining to vehicle which is illegal though arbitration award had been passed for a sum of Rs.1,28,168/- on 18.01.2011 which was the amount of delay payment charges only. Further submitted that a sum of Rs.50,000/- on dt.01.08.2012 & a sum of 20,000/- on 14.05.2013 had been deposited by the complainant as Ops demanded in order to get the NOC for which the Ops have provided payment receipt the last in which mentioned “Closer” in the remarks column.

     On the other hand the learned counsel for the Ops submitted that the present case filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable as per provisions of C.P Act 1986 as well as an arbitration award has already been passed.

    With these pleadings, arguments and on perusal of documents and materials available in record it is observed and believed that the Ops have taken money Rs.50,000/- & 20,000/- from the complainant on different dates in order to provide NOC to the complainant irrespective of award passed and the said awarded amount of Rs.1,28,168/- was imposed as DPC to the loan A/C of the complainant which is the only dispute between the contracting parties and in spite of issuing closer receipt there is nothing bar at the end of Ops to provide NOC to the complainant. When such services are availed by the complainant exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment for which the present complainant is a consumer and the dispute wherein the Ops denies or disputes the allegations complained in the complaint and services rendered against payment of money would be services under the Act and mere existence of Arbitration clause should not come in the way of aggrieved party from seeking legitimate relief under the C.P. Act and accordingly arguments by Ops are answered. For which the complainant knocked the door of this Forum and as such activities of the Ops proved deficiency of service and are held liable.

    Hence, it is ordered and directed the Ops to provide NOC to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. Further, the Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards compensation and 1000/- towards cost of litigation within the same period. Failing which the entire amount will carry an interest @ 10% per annum till finalization of the award amount.

                               Accordingly this case is disposed of.

 

                                                                 I agree                                        I agree

 

      (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                          (Smt. B. Giri)                                 (Sri A.K. Purohit)                  

     Member, DCDRF                      Member (W), DCDRF                         President, DCDRF   

        KEONJHAR                                   KEONJHAR                                      KEONJHAR

 

                                                                        Dictated & Corrected by me

 

 

                                                                                 (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                                                                                                          MEMBER DCDRF, KEONJHAR