Orissa

Kendujhar

28/2014

Deepak Kumar Bhanjdeo - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Manager,Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri S. Das & Associates

11 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.28 OF 2014

 

Deepak Kumar Bhanjdeo, 30 years,

S/o-Sri Parameswar Bhanjdeo,

Resident of Village- Nahabeda (Part),

Near Panchayat Office, P.O- Nahabeda,

P.S- Jhumpura, Dist- Keonjhar.………………….Complainant

                          Vrs.

1. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd,

Keonjhar Branch, At- Keshari Complex,

N.H- 49, Post- Keonjhargarh, P.S- Town,

Dist- Keonjhar-758001

2. The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd,

Rourkela Branch, At- Dua Complex,

1^st Floor, Rourkela, P.O/P.S- Panposh,

Dist- Sundargarh- 769004…………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: - Mrs.  B. Giri,     MEMBER (W)

                     Sri S.C. Sahoo, MEMBER

 

 Advocate for the complainant- Sri S. Das & Associates

Advocate for the Ops - Sri A.K. Pattnaik & Associates

___________________________________________________________________  

Date of Hearing-20.05.2015                                                Date of Order- 11.08.2015

___________________________________________________________________

Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member-This is a complaint praying for a direction to Ops to pay the initial deposit of Rs.1,60,248/- and monthly installments of Rs.23,440/- paid to Ops along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

      The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant for his self employment doing business of trading Iron ores and other minerals he had to visit different places for his business felt necessary to purchase a Tata Indigo ECS-LX Car, bearing regd. No. OR-02-BZ-7242 through the financer i.e. Ops through financial assistance of Rs.4,18,000/- and to be paid by the complainant along with interest in 47 monthly installments starting from 11.07.12 to 11.05.16 and accordingly EMI for the month of July 2012 and August 2012 was paid to the Ops. The alleged car was stolen on 10.09.2012 night and F.I.R was logged in Angul P.S. vide Police Case No. 606, dt.11.09.2012 and also intimated to Ops regarding theft of the alleged vehicle as well as to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company however settled the matter and paid Rs.5,36,460/- to Op2 vide cheque No.030191, dt.15.03.14 which was appropriated towards outstanding loan amount of the complainant instead of offering the initial deposit of two monthly installments and the Ops are not entitle of any interest accrued from the date of theft of the alleged vehicle and doing so by the Ops is illegal trade practice and finding no other way the complainant sent a legal notice to Ops on 23.04.2014 regarding illegal trade practice and sustained financial loss of Rs.1,86,688/- for mental agony. Hence, this case -

 

In support filed:

 

1. Photostat copy of vehicle details and along with contact details and payment schedule - 5 sheets.

2. Photostat copy of F.I.R and Final Report - 4 sheets.

3. Photostat copy of request letter of the complainant along with postal receipt - 2 sheets.

4. Photostat copy of order passed by learned SDJM, Angul - 1 sheet.

5. Letter of Insurer - 1 sheet.

6. Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts - 2 sheets.

7. Acknowledgement Cards - 2 sheets.

 

       After service of notice the Ops have appeared and set exparte on 09.01.15 due to non-filing of their version and on request of Ops and from the point of natural justice the exparte order was set aside on 11.03.15 on receipt and serving of written version to the complainant. The Ops have stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable since the complainant suppressed material facts, vague and baseless and with malafide intent and allegation of deficiency of service as alleged in without documentary evidence and the complainant failed to repay the loan installments within stipulated time and has violated the terms and conditions of contract i.e. loan agreement as the transaction between the parties is a contract and both parties to perform their part of obligation and as per contract bearing No.5000983290, dt.11.06.2012 the cost of the vehicle was Rs.5,78,248/- on which an initial amount of Rs.1,60,248/- was paid by the complainant to the dealer and the remaining amount of Rs.4,18,000/- was financed by these Ops and also the complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,940/- towards finance charges i.e. interest and provisional insurance premium for next 3 years of Rs.60,000/- and as such the complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.6,15,940/- towards the contract value and the said contract value amount was to be repaid in 47 EMIs’ which are to be paid from 11.07.2012 till 11.05.2016 and owing to default made by the complainant the Ops referred the matter to the sole arbitrator who called upon the complainant to show cause and despite sufficient opportunity the complainant did not came to contest the arbitration case and subsequently an exparte arbitration award passed on 06.06.2014 and the copy of award was duly served to the complainant is very well known.

 

                               In support filed:

1. Copy of Contract details - 5 sheets

2. Copy of Agreement         - 8 sheets

 

      Heard, the learned counsel for Ops in absence of the complainant as remained absent. It is not disputed that the complainant is a consumer before the Ops. The main issue is whether the Ops are deficient in giving service to the complainant when the Insurance company settled the matter of theft of the alleged vehicle of the complainant and paid the settled amount of Rs.5,36,460/- to Op2 vide cheque No.030191, dt.15.03.2014.  

     The learned counsel for Ops submitted that at the time of receipt of cheque vide No.030191, dt.15.03.2014 for an amount of Rs.5, 36,460/- and on that date the loan A/C of the complainant was shown an outstanding of Rs.5, 66,369.25 p. including pending EMI, future principal, accrued ODC etc. and the insurance settled amount did not satisfied the loan A/C of the complainant as per clause 10-3 of the agreement.

       On perusal of documents submitted by the parties it is ascertained that the complainant had voluntarily applied for the loan to Ops and being conversant with the terms and conditions of the said agreement, installments, interest, delayed payment charges, insurance to be paid etc. hence thereafter the complainant cannot at the belated stage make any allegation against the Ops regarding the said loan.  Hence it is observed that the instant complaint makes out no ground for relief under the provisions of Section 14 of the C.P. Act 1986 and there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by these Ops and no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops as the Ops have performed their duties within the provisions of the Loan -cum- Hypothecation Agreement.

      We held that the complainant has failed to make out a primafacie case against the Ops since no violation of the said agreement done by these Ops as alleged by the complainant, hence the instant complaint of the complainant is dismissed having no merit.

 

            Accordingly, the case is disposed of.

 

                                                                                                            I agree  

                                              

              (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                                                               (Mrs. B. Giri)                                  

                    Member                                                                      Member (W)                                       

 

                                   Dictated & corrected by me

 

                                               (Sri S.C. Sahoo)

                                                    Member

                                            DCDRF, Keonjhar