DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR

C.C. CASE NO. 285/2014

Sitikantha Pattnayak, aged about 41 years,

S/o –  Late Ramahari Pattnayak, , At – K.Nuagarh, PO- Gangapur,

Dist- Ganjam, At present residing at  S-2/339, Niladri Vihar,

PO- Sailashree Vihar, PS- Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar, Dist – Khurdha

….       Complainant

-Vrs.-

1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., At- Plot No.A-64, Nayapalli,

Bhubaneswar, Dist : Khurda,

2. HDFC Bank Ltd.,  Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013, through its Managing Director.

                                                                                                ….       Opp. Parties

For the complainant                :           Mr.K.C.Prusty                (Advocate)

For the O.Ps                            :           Mr. D.P.Tripathy & Associates (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING                :           16/09/2014

DATE OF ORDER                :           24/11/2023

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.         This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.         The complainant’s case in brief is that,  he incurred a loan of Rs.2,86,010/-  from the OP.1  in order to purchase a   Maruti Alto 800-LXI car. An agreement was executed between the complainant and the OPs on 25/07/2013.   The complainant had to repay the entire loan amount with interest in 60 EMIs @ Rs.6600/-.    As alleged by the complainant, although agreement was executed between the parties, the copy thereof was not provided to the complainant. The OPs were collecting the installment amount from the complainant from time to time but they did not supply the statement of account. All on a sudden,  on 07/09/2014, the OPs repossessed the vehicle of the complainant in respect of which loan was sanctioned. The OPs have violated the guidelines laid down by Reserve Bank of India.  The entire act on the part of the OPs is not only arbitrary but also illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint. 

3.         On the other hand, the OPs filed written version  contending therein that,  the complaint  is not maintainable. There is no cause of action  to file this complaint. The complainant has not come to this Commission  with clean hands. This Commission has  no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement. The complainant defaulted in repaying loan for which the OPs exercised their right under loan-cum- hypothecation agreement and repossessed the vehicle. It does not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. As the complaint is devoid of  any merit, it is liable to be dismissed.

4          Perused the materials on record.  Admittedly, the complainant  incurred a loan of Rs.2,86,010/-  from the OP.1  in order to purchase a   Maruti Alto 800-LXI car .  The statement of account shows that,  as on 06/01/2023, there was an outstanding of Rs.8,73,595/- against the complainant. In the face of such huge outstanding against the complainant, the action on the part of OPs  to take repossession of the vehicle in respect of which loan was sanctioned, was neither illegal nor arbitrary. Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice cannot be attributed to the OPs  under such situation. When the loanee commits default in repayment of the loan amount, the right accrues to the financier under the terms & conditions of the agreement to repossess the vehicle hypothecated to them.  So the OPs  have acted in accordance with the terms & conditions of the agreement. The plea that the complainant was not supplied with copy of the loan agreement and statement of account,  is not well founded. Had it been so,  the  complainant could have come to this Commission  immediately  after  execution of the loan agreement. But he came to the Commission only after the default was committed on his part and the OPs tried to exercise their right under the hypothecation agreement.  Considering the facts & circumstances of the case in entirety,   this Commission finds that the complaint bears no merit. Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is  hereby  dismissed on contest   against the OPs  being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the   24^th  November, 2023  under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W)   of the Commission.

                                                                                                (K.C.RATH)

                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 Dictated & corrected by me

               President                                                                                    

I agree                                                                                                

(S.Tripathy)                                                                                        

Member (W)                                                                             

Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno