DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO.356/ 2017
Sushanta Kumar Mohanty, aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Brajabandhu Moahanty, At – Nosta,
PO – Kadamapal, PS – Balichandrapur, Dist – Jajpur
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,
Samsung Plaza,3rd Floor,Above Binayak Bajaj,
Plot No.392, BJB Nagar,
Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar – 751014
Through its Branch Manager.
- Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,
At - Sardar Patel Road, 6th Floor, West Wing, Guindy,
Chennai – 600032, through Its Managing Director.
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Sri K.C.Prusty (Adv.)
For the O.Ps : Mr. Simanchal Dash & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 17/10/2017
DATE OF ORDER : 27/09/2022
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 had incurred a loan of Rs.23,00,000/- from the OP.1 in order to purchase a truck. The monthly installment (EMI) for repayment of the loan was fixed at Rs.52,543/-. As alleged by the complainant, he was regularly paying the EMIs, but the OPs threatened to seize the vehicle in question. Besides the OPs have not provided with the copy of agreement and the regular statement of accounts to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs filed written version contending therein that, the complainant had taken financial assistance to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/- along with finance charges (interest) of Rs.7,47,500/-, as a result of which, the total agreement value was Rs.30,47,500/-. He had to repay the loan by monthly installment @ of Rs.52,543/-. As alleged by the OPs, the complainant became a regular defaulter and did not pay the EMIs regularly and as on March, 2021, there was an outstanding of Rs.40,25,391/- against the complainant. The complainant, through a Misc. Case before this Court, has obtained an order restraining the OPs from seizing the above vehicle till disposal of the case. As there is huge amount outstanding against the complainant, the Commission may kindly direct the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.40,25,391/- to the OPs, other wise to surrender the vehicle in the Zima of the OPs.
4 Perused the materials on record. The allegations of the complainant that he was not provided with the copy of agreement, is not well founded. When he had signed the agreement, he was supposed to know about the terms &conditions of the agreement. After default, such plea is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Further, the allegation that he was not provided with the statement of account, is not an important factor. It is within his knowledge that he had incurred the loan from the OPs and he had to repay it by EMIs @of Rs.52,543/-. Be that as it may, the statement of account submitted before the Commission shows that, there is huge amount outstanding against the complainant. It is the duty of the complainant to repay the loan. Under such situation, it can not be said that the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint does not bear any 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 27th September, 2022 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
