Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/49/2016

Sanatan Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. Keonjhar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Sri G.N. Jena & Sri A.C. Sahoo

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

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

                                                CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO 49 OF 2016

Sanatan Mahanta, aged about 58 years

S/o: Late Rengu Mahanta,

Village: Podadiha,

P.O Maidankel, P.S: Raisuan,

Dist.: Keonjhar, Odisha-758014…………………………………………………………………………Complainant

 

                Vrs.

 

1. Shriram Transport Finance Ltd.

Keonjhar Branch, At: Thana Squire,

P.O:  Keonjhargarh, P.S:  Town,

Dist.: Keonjhar

2.  Shriram Ttransport Finance Ltd.

Regd. Office: 101-105, 1^st floor,

B. Wing, Shiv Chambers, Sector-11,

CBD- Belapur - Navi Mumbai-400614…………………………………………………………………O.P Parties

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Advocate for Complainant- Sri G.N. Jena & A.C Sahu

Advocate for OPs- A.K Pattnaik & R.R Rana

 

 

1. Sri Purusottam Samantara.- The set out of the case is that the complainant purchased a truck , bearing Regd No – OR-09K-5767 in maintain his livelihood, being financed from magma finance company , the assets is refinanced by Shriram Transport Finance ltd against a sum of Rs 4,50,000/-on the said old vehicle . The EMI is set out at Rs 16,200/- from Feb/2013 to Oct/2016.

2. The complainant averred, the installment was regular and already paid a sum of Rs 4, 34,320/- till November -2016

3. The petitioner also submitted during 10/2016, the financier made a compulsion to pay a further more a sum of Rs 9, 07,092-51/- which includes different charges levied by the finance company being arbitrary and illegal in manner and getting a paid statement become aware of such exorbitant amount in due.

4. It is also submitted besides the refinance, the complainant also availed finance of Rs 1, 35,000/- towards paying insurance premium and purchased of Tyres. So it is urged, when paid Rs 4, 34,320/- towards loan repayment and Rs 15,680/- is due, the amount demanding further  Rs 9,07,092-51/- is arbitrary and not at par with RBI guidelines, hence it needs adjudication and proper entitlement provision to be looked into. Praying not to seized the vehicle and waive off the amount levied under various charges, relied on statement of account and insurance certificate photo copy and affidavit.

5. The opposite party Shriram Transport finance co ltd appeared on notice admitted the refinance amount inclusive insurance and finance extended in purchased of tyres.

6. On the contrary, the O.P vehemently contended no where the complainant submitted that the O.P breached or violated any provisions and conditions of the contract.

7. Further submitted the present complaint is filed to evade his legal liability, to extract undue advantage thereby flagrant abuse of process of law.

8. In addition also contended complainant is a regular defaulter and has not come to this court with clean hands inter alia the case is not maintainable in view of the lack of jurisdiction, beyond purview of definition of consumer along with the disputes is outside the scope and purview of the consumer protection Act, on this score liable to be dismissed in limine.

9. Heard the learned counsels at both end and perused the material on record.

10. On perusal it is come across both if the parties relied on statement of account, being on relevant to each other.

11. On call of the forum to place the copy of vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement which has not been produced.

12. Again it is not in the record, the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement has been issued, although Para-(e) expressly speaks so, rather it is habitual only statement of account is supplied to the customer on paid basis. Hence the manner of performance goes against normal NBFC (RBI) guidelines in absence of expressed clauses, the adjudication is in dark and submissions are managed one.

13. Again the O.P has not placed any cogent reasons in levying charges under various heads, leading to accumulation of Rs 9, 85,982.61/- as on the date of 04/11/2016 being dues on complainant, which is neither convincing or explained point to point, so in absence of non-explanation of consistent rules or guidelines that stack up such high amount, cannot legally sustainable. Mere filing a statement account by the O.P would not justify the imposition, whether being arbitrary or not.

14. Further perusal, it is observed, the loaned amount is Rs 4, 50,000/- and the complainant has paid Rs 4, 34,320/- against the vehicular loan refinance. Also the complainant has not paid anything on the finance amount towards insurance and tyre.

15. Neither the complainant nor the O.P has exhaustive point to point explanation on repayment schedule and amount due. So Relief cannot be sought or awarded without the burden of proving that the anomalies raised are arbitrary & illogic to the core. Hence realization of relief needs to be explanatory to utmost proposition.  

16. On the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability, we can say the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws.

17. Besides within the provision of section 11 (i) and (2), the ingredients that cover this case thus thereby no question arises to note.  Other issues as raised in the O.Ps pleading are habitual protest in contest and the decision relied are unfit in the present contest.

18. Further it admitting that the statement account has been supplied & so to say the cause of action arises in institution of this case. Having not getting any sufficient material on record and the resistance being not explanatory, we allow the case in fifty fifty reimbursement on each side in settlement of the claim.

19. We hereby considerably allow that the amount due on the petitioner is to be shared in equal proposition in view of the complainant as already repaid Rs 4, 34,320/- against the financed amount of Rs 4, 50,000/- so it will be fair just and proper, the petitioner is to pay finally Rs 4, 53,346/- to the opposite party at a lump sum as the complainant has not paid a pie towards the financed amount of insurance and tyre.

 

 

ORDER

 

The petitioner is hereby directed to pay the O.P a sum of Rs 4, 53,346/-(Four lakh fifty three thousand three hundred forty six only) towards his complete repayment and in getting money the O.P is to issue NOC instantly without any demur.

(i) The O.Ps is also to supply the documents, keys or any other securities taken during course of finance.

(ii) The above term of order to be complied within 45 days of this order, failing @ 6% interest per annum will accrued on each side on the entire amount till realization.

(iii) No order as to compensation and cost.

(iv) The interim order passed is hereby vacated.

 

Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 23^rd June 2017.         

 

I agree        

 

    

     (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                            (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar    

 

 

 

                                               

                                                          Dictated & Corrected by me

 

 

                                                                 (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                       (President

  DCDRF, Keonjhar