Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/22/2015

Ashis Kumar Sethi - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. TATA Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S. Lenka & Associates

06 Apr 2016

ORDER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 22 OF 2015

 Ashis Kumar Sethi, aged about 35 years,

 S/O- Mayadhar Sethy,

 Village- Sarei, P.O/Via- Champua,

 Dist- Keonjhar………………………….………………..Complainant

                                Vrs

1. TATA Motors Finance Ltd.

            At- Gurudwara Singh Sabha,

            Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

            Dist- Khurda

2. M/s. Mulu Stock/ Parking yard,

            Represented through B. Singh,

            At-Jharbelda, N.H-6, Dist- Keonjhar,

3. R.T.O. Barbil,

            Dist- Keonjhar...………………………..………………...Op. Parties

 

PRESENT- SRI AKSHAYA KUMAR PUROHIT, PRESIDENT

                    SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                    SRI S.C. SAHOO, MEMBER

                    Advocate for the Complainant - Sri S. Lenka & Associates

                    Advocate for OP1                    - Sri Durga Prasad Mohanty

                    Advocate for OP2                    - Self

                    Advocate for OP3                    - Authorized person  

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

DATE OF HEARING - 16.03.2016                                      DATE OF ORDER - 06.04.2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________                                                              

SRI A.K. PUROHIT, PRESIDENT:

1. Alleging deficiency in financial service the complainant has preferred a consumer complaint before the Hon’ble District Forum Cuttack vide C.C. No. 65 of 2011 which was disposed of on dated 27.12.2013 with the observation that the complainant is entitled to approach the necessary Forum for redressal of his grievance. Accordingly the complainant has preferred this consumer complaint on dated 2.5.2015 before this Forum.

2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant for his self employment and for maintaining his livelihood had purchased a Tipper bearing Regd. No. OR-09-K 6445 from the O.P. under a hire purchase agreement for an amount of Rs. 10,21,317/-. According to the said agreement the complainant has to repay the loan amount in 47 installments with effect from 11.5.2008 to 11.3.2012. The complainant has pleaded that, due to dislocation of Iron-ore transporting he had not able to pay the installment for a period of six months. To this the complainant had approached the O.P. No.1 to reduce the EMI rate and the loan amount may be recalculate with extension of time. The complainant alleges that, instead of modifying the EMI rate the O.Ps. have seized the vehicle on dated 6.1.2011 and sold away the same. The complainant further alleges that, the seizure and disposal of the vehicle without any intimation to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.                                                                                                               

3. The O.Ps. have contested the case by filing their written version separately. The O.Ps. have simply denied the allegations of the complainant and have not come up with a specific case.

4. Heard both the parties. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. Admittedly the cause of action for this case arose on dated 6.1.2011 when the vehicle of the complainant was seized by the O.Ps. and the present case has been preferred on dated 2.5.2015, i.e. after about 4 years and 4 months from the date of cause of action. The complainant has not filed any petition for condonation of delay as provided U/s 24A(2) of the Consumer Protection Act. Perused the Xerox copy of Order passed by the Hon’ble District Forum, Cuttack in C.C. No.65 of 2011. In the said case the order was passed on dated 27.12.2013 and the present case has been filed on dated 2.5.2015, i.e. after about 16 months from the passing of the said order. The complainant has not assigned any reasons for non filing of the present case immediately after passing of the said order on dated 27.12.2013. Hence the case of the complainant is barred by limitation and hence the case is not maintainable.

5. Since the case is not maintainable, it is not necessary to discuss on the merit of the case.

            Accordingly the case of the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to cost.

 

             I agree                                                                                                       I agree

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

            Member                                                                                             Member (W)                                                                                 President                                    

DCDRF, KEONJHAR                                                                              DCDRF, KEONJHAR                                                                   DCDRF, KEONJHAR

                                                                                                                                                             Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                                                                                                      (Sri A.K. Purohit)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF KEONJHAR