PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.-86/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Shankarsan Pradhan, Aged about 47 years,

S/O-Late Rama Chandra Pradhan,

R/O-Kardapal, PO-Gargarhbahal,

Ps-Charmal,

Dist-Sambalpur-768105.                                                    ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. M/s SREI Equipment Finance Limited,

At-Room No. 12 & 13, 2^nd Floor, 6A,

Kiran Shankar Roy Road, Kolkata-700001.

2. M/S SREI Equipment Finance Limited,

At/Po/Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768006. …....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. R.N. Debata, Advocate  & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1 & 2        :- Sri. S. Ku. Mohanty, Adv. & Associates

Date of Filing:19.11.2022,  Date of Hearing :24.07.2023  Date of Judgement : 28.08.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant intended to purchase a JCB machine during the year 2018 and for the said purpose approached the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 agreed to advance loan of Rs. 18,20,000/- to the Complainant repayable in 46 installments.  At the time of advancement of loan, the OP No. 2 collected 8 number of blank signed cheques from the Complainant illegally assuring return of the same after repayment of all installments. The Complainant repaid all the 46 installments. During December, 2021 the Complainant requested the OPs for return of the cheques, but on false pretext of loan outstanding, the OPs refused to return the cheques and have been illegally and maliciously mis-utilising the same. On seven occasation the OPs illegally presented seven cheques out of the 8 cheques in the bank for collection but the said cheques were returned without collection and as a consequence of which the banker of the Complainant on each occasation debited Rs. 750/- from the account of the Complainant and as a result the banker of the Complainant deducted Rs. 5250/- alleging bouncing charges. The OPs through its advocate caused notice dt. 20.02.2022 to the Complainant and the Complainant submitted a Regd. Reply on dt. 17.10.2022 to the Op narrating the facts and to return the cheques and issue necessary NOC. The Complainant is not liable to pay the illegal demand of Rs. 1, 48,635.29 as advanced by the OPs since the Complainant repaid the entire loan as per the contract. The acts of the OPs are illegal, unjustified, covered with malice and constitutes unfair trade practices.  
2. The Written Version of OPs is that the dispute before this Hon’ble Commission is not maintainable in view of the fact that the complainant has availed the finance for purchasing the JCB Machine not for earning his livelihood, rather to expand his source of income to earn more profit. The Complainant approached and offered a proposal to the OPs towards purchasing JCB Machine which is a heavy commercial equipment to engage the alleged commercial machine in the aforesaid business to earn more profit. The alleged Heavy commercial equipment financed to the Complainant by the OP is for commercial purpose only and as such the dispute between the parties does not fall within ambit of consumer disputes as provided by the C.P Act, 2019. The Complainant has admitted that he also having two Tractors vide Regd. No. OR 15 P 6311, OR 15 K 9152, OR 15 K 9153 and one Mahindra Savari vide its Regd. No. 15 N 1023. All are financed from UGB bank. The loan repayment schedule was clearly notified by OPs in transparent manner and which is subject to terms of the finance agreement as regards revision and supplement charges and the Complainant had assured payment of dues. The Complainant is trying to mislead the Hon’ble Commission by describing the post dated security cheques issued as per agreement to be blank cheques. The Complainant has suppressed the fact that he paid all dues whereas suppressed the payment due as regards Rs. 95,713/-. The dues are in conformity with the loan agreement and the Complainant is clearly notified about the dues. As per SBR clauses of the Agreement the OP duly communicated on 30 July 2019 about increase in installment. Hence, the OP has not made any irregularity as per claim on demand. The OPs are governed by the RBI Regulations and which mandates to declare a loan account as NPA on default and the overdue charges and interest are consequential charges flowing under the contract and Regulation. The Complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed/prayed by him in the prayer of the complaint petition and this case is liable to be dismissed in lime line.  
3. From the above it is found that the complainant has multiple vehicles and he uses the vehicles for commercial purpose. As the vehicles are used for commercial purpose this complaint is not maintainable. Further the Complainant has not given any evidence that he has purchased the vehicle for his unemployment and he himself has engaged in the said vehicle for his livelihood. However both the parties are directed to settle the matter by mutual settlement among themselves. Accordingly the case is dismissed. 

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 28^th day of Aug, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.