Orissa

StateCommission

A/140/2021

Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajit Kumar Pradhan - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.K. Samal

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/140/2021
( Date of Filing : 21 Jun 2021 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 23/03/2021 in Case No. C.C.03/2020 of District Kandhamal)
 
1. Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.
At- Hatapada, In front of Hill View Lodge, Phulbani,
Kandhanmal
odisha
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ajit Kumar Pradhan
S/O- Late Baka Digal, At- Lahabadi Po- Rasimendi Ps- Sadar Phulbani
Kandhamal
Odisha
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr. A.K. Samal, Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 26 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

 

           Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.        Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD12B1Q218 being financed by the opposite party for Rs. 50,000/- on condition to repay the same in 36 instalments commencing from February, 2018. The complainant allegedly paid the instalment on 17.6.2020, but thereafter the loan amount could not be re-paid, as such in September, 2019, the vehicle was repossessed by the opposite party. The complainant stated that he has deposited Rs. 10,000/- towards outstanding and requested to release the vehicle, but the opposite party did not do so. So, the complaint was filed.

4.        The opposite party filed written version stating that they have extended the loan on agreement to pay back the same. As per agreement they have issued the demand notice  as the outstanding was not paid. Prior to seizure of the vehicle, the opposite party issued pre-sale notice to the complainant, but the complainant did not do anything. Therefore, opposite party seized the vehicle in September, 2019.

5.        After hearing the parties, learned District Commission passed the following order:-

           “xxxxxxxx

                 The complainant case is allowed against O.P. Therefore, the O.P. is hereby directed to refund the cost of the vehicle of Rs. 50,000/- apart from that the O.P. also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% P.A.  Accordingly the C.C. is disposed of.

                 Order pronounced in the open court on this 23rd the  day of March, 2021.”

6.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order is illegal and improper because they have not taken agreement into consideration. He referred to Clause 2.9 and 14.2 of the agreement which is filed today and submitted that in case of default, opposite party has the right to repossess the vehicle without notice, so he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.        Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.        It is admitted fact that the complainant has availed loan from the opposite party for Rs. 50,000/- to purchase the vehicle. It is admitted fact that the complainant has not paid any amount after 17.6.2020 and the overdue charges have also not been paid. It also appears that on 19.9.2019, demand notice was issued to the complainant and pre-sale notice was also sent to the complainant on 23.11.2019. In view of the aforesaid notice, the opposite party seized the vehicle of the complainant in September, 2019.

9.        Clause 14.2 of the Agreement is as follows:-

              14.2. In the event of failure of borrower in complying with the demand in the said notice, the borrower shall be bound to surrender the asset to the Lender at the cost of the Borrower at such location, as the Lender may designate, in the same condition in which it was originally delivered to the Borrower ordinary wear and tear excepted, failing which the Lender shall be entitled to seize the asset wherever it is, without any further notice.

10.     In view of the aforesaid agreement as the opposite party referred, he has the right to repossess the vehicle  without any notice in the event of default of loan amount. So, when there is admittedly overdue charges not paid, that means the complainant defaulted in payment of the entire loan amount. Hence, the opposite party has right to repossess the vehicle without any notice.

11.     In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the learned District Commission without following the agreement and other documents passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is required to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.

12.     The appeal stands  allowed. No cost.

 DFR be sent back forthwith.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.