DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.15 of 2016
Sachita Jagadala, aged about 50 years, S/o. Shankar Jagadala, Occupation – Auto Driver, R/o. village Sripura, P.O. Dharmasala, P.S. Birmaharajpur, District - Subarnapur,
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Maa Samaleswari Automobile, Sambalpur, Agency Code No.4136, At – Sambalpur Ainthapali, P.O./P.S./District - Sambalpur
2. B.P. Combines, Bhubaneswar, At/P.O./P.S. Bhubaneswar, District - Khurda.
3. Bajaj Auto Finance Limited, Old Mumbai – Pune, Road Akurdi Pune - 411035.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri S.N.Sahu
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri P.K. Purohit
Advocate for the O.P. No.3 …………. Sri M.K.Panda
Present
1. Sri U.N. Purohit, President
2. Sri H. Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.16.09.2016
Date of Hearing Dt.22.03.2023
Date of Order Dt.05.04.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri H. Padhan, M.
The complainant filed complaint petition U/s. 12 of C.P. Act 1986. The case of the complainant is that O.P. No.3 Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. carrying on business all over India and Franchise O.P. No.1 and 2 for the State of Odisha to sold three Wheeler and other spares. The O.P. No.1 engaged number of agents in different area on behalf of company for promotion of sales. One Anu Mishra agent of O.P. No.1 insist the complainant purchase of three wheeler on the basis of down payment. The complainant paid Rs.36,000/- and agreed for monthly installment of Rs.5527/-. Further the agent take Rs.18,000/- towards tax, insurance and registration of Auto and did not issue any receipt inspite of demand by the complainant. The Auto was delivered on 23.09.2013. For the first
-: 2 :-
three installment no receipt were issued to complainant and nor made entry in payment register maintaining by O.P. No.3. One Litu Mahapatra agent of O.P. No.1 received six number of installment and issued receipt against payment, but the O.P. No.1 not accepting though the receipt was valid. Then O.P. No.2 appointed one person namely Amit who issued three number of receipt this document are also not accepted by the O.P. No.1. The complainant earning his livelihood merely upon the source of income from Auto driving. Due to non acceptance of an amounting Rs.43,242/- and not issued three receipt of three installment paid on first occasion the complainant sustained severe loss. The complainant paying regular installment, but the agent of O.P. No.1 and 2 mis-appropriated the said payment knowing such complainant deposited installment through Axis Bank from 18.12.2015 to 20.06.2016. The complainant approached O.P. No.1 and 2 on 03.01.2016 to take action for above misappropriation amount of installment but O.P. No.1 and 2 instead of taking action sending their goondas to take away the Auto using muscles power. The act of O.Ps. amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant filed receipts showing payment of 9 (Nine) installments. The complainant claim to accept those receipts granted by the agents an amount of Rs.43,242/- and Rs.16,575/- towards three installment not showing in the ledger and direct the O.P. not to take the Auto from his possession. Further compensation of Rs.5000/- and mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs.10000/-
The O.P. No.3 present and already filed version O.P. No.1 and 2 set exparte. The claim of O.P. No.3 is that O.P. No.3 is registered financial non banking company having reputation and good will in financial business and they never deficiency in service and involved any unfair trade practice. The complainant alongwith one Prabod Kumar Mishra approached O.P. No.3 for
-: 3 :-
finance of Rs.2,29,194/- vide Loan agreement No.L3WSR02664268, the complainant agreed with the terms and conditions and installment was fixed Rs.5457/- for 42 installment. Both the complainant and Prabod Kumar Mishra signed and execute the document after understanding the same. As the complainant was regular default in payment of installment. The O.P. No.3 issued notice to the complainant and Prabod Kumar Mishra 09.12.2014 supported by postal receipt a Ann-C inspite of that they failed to regularize the installment as such O.P. No.3 issued notice vide Ann. D i.e. pre sale intimation on 09.12.2014 inspite of that thy failed to regularize the installment as such the O.P. No.3 issued notice vide Ann. D i.e. pre sale intimation supported by postal receipt and Ann. E is the demand notice issued to both the loanee. As such the complainant & co-borrower Prabod Kumar Mishra failed to comply the legal notice the O.P. having financer of hire purchase/ hypothecate being the owner repossess the same in due process of law and the vehicle has already been sold to release the same loan amount. The O.P. relies on decision Charanjit Singh Chadda Vrs. Sudhir Meher and Manipal Finance Company Vrs. Bangarappa , Bharat Meheta Vrs. State Inspector of Police Chennai. In all the decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if any dispute arises as per hire purchase agreement/hypothecation agreement in the event of default of payment of outstanding dues E.M.I. consequently if a financer are repossess the vehicle does not fall within the deficiency of service. The O.Ps. has filed document Ann.A to E i.e. loan agreement, statement of account, loan recall notice, pre sale notice, demand notice before legal action.
Perused the complaint, version and documents of both parties we found that the complainant is chronic defaulter of O.P. being the financer of hire purchase vehicle they are the real owner till clearance of loan amount. On verification of account statement and the document filed by the O.Ps. we comes
-: 4 :-
to a conclusion that they have taken proper legal action for realization of loan amount and not in deficiency in service as such the case of complainant having no merit stands dismissed without cost.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 05th day of April 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri U.N.Purohit Sri H.Padhan
President Member
Dt.05.04.2023 Dt.05.04.2023
