Orissa

Jajapur

CC/82/2015

Dillip Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Signatory Baja Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amar Kumar Routray

17 Nov 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                              Dated the 17th day of November,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.82 of 2015

Dillip ku.Sahu , S/O Late Sarat ch.Sahu

At. Bhuluka , P.O. K.P.Sasan, P.S.Balichandrapur

Near Padmalaya High School

 Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                   .                                      (Versus)

1.Authorised Signatory ,Bajaj Finance Ltd, (Three wheeler)

 At. M.S.Kamala Authomobiles, P.O. Badambadi ,plot No. 99,

Kathajodi Road, Cuttack.

2.Authorised Signatory, Bajaj Finance Ltd, Regional Office ,Akurdi Pune,India .

3.Authorised Signatory,Bajaj Finance,Sanjibani Automobiles,

At.Sankara,P.O.Jajpur Road,Dt.jajpur.                                                                    ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

                                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                            Sri A.Ku.Routray,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2          Sri M.K.Panda, R.K.Panda, M.K.Rout and associates.

For the Opp.parties; No.3                     None.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   17.11.2017.

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY MEMBER  .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact as per complaint petition  is that  the complainant  being an unemployed youth and to maintain his lively hood had  purchased a Bajaj 3 wheeler Auto taking financial assistance of Rs.1,45,000/- from the O.Ps under the strength of an hypothecation agreement. As per term and conditions of agreement the said loan along with interest  is required to be repaid by 36 monthly equal installments at the rate of 5,750/-  per month starting  from 10.11.2012 to 10.10.2015.

            As per agreement the petitioner is  required to pay Rs. 2,07,000/ along with interest as against which the petitioner has already paid Rs. 1,31,127/-  and due to unnatural death of his wife on 16.08.14 he became defaulter  and at present liable  to pay Rs,75,873/- . In such situation the O.P trying to repossess and sale the vehicle  forcefully and illegally claiming Rs. 99,923/ as outstanding as well as  charging 36% DPC  instead of 9% which violate the guide line of Hon’ble Odisha High Court and Appex court . Accordingly the petitioner finding no other alternative ,  knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to direct the O.P  not to repossess / sale the vehicle till disposal of the present dispute as well as to  charge 9% DPC instead of 36 % as per observation of  Appex court .

            The O.Ps.   entered into appearance and have taken following stands in their written version.

That the present complaint may be dismissed as not maintainable as per C.P.Act 1986 in favour of the O.Ps  and refer the present dispute before the Arbitration proceeding .

That the O.Ps  on the  request of   the complainant extended financial assistance for purchase of  one passenger carrier RE-445L .  On agreeing  the entire loan terms  and conditions  a  loan agreement was executed by the complainant in favour of the O.Ps  basing on which the O.P  extended financial assistance of Rs,2,07,000/- which include financial charge of Rs. 62,000/-  which is at the rate of 14.25 % per annum .

            The complainant  grossly  failed to abide by the terms  and conditions of the loan and was in default even on repeated   request and reminders  by the O.Ps .  The complainant has   not  taken any efforts to regularize he loan  account constrained by the said attitude O.Ps have affected vehicle verification  cum  demand notice dt 15.07.2013 .

            As per the  right  vested on O.Ps  vide  clause -34 the O.Ps referred the matter before the sole arbitrator on 27.8.14 along with an interim application for the custody of vehicle U/S  17 of Arbitration and conciliation Act  1996.

            On the date of hearing on 10/11./14 the complainant stand expartee to the proceeding as the matter in dispute was fully subjudice before the sole Arbitrator and interim order was pronounced on 30.08.14 by the Arbitration Tribunal .Hence the Hon’ble Forum does not have jurisdiction to try the dispute and may be dismissed    .under the Provision of C.P.Act 1986.

            O.Ps submit that the allegation and the submission  in para-1 of the complaint is denied and disputed save and except what are  the matter of record .  As to the said contents  of the complaint in this para’s  the O.Ps wish to submit that the contents are not true and correct ,hence it is denied in toto .  The O.Ps wish to submit that  the period of loan agreement was over on 10.10.15  and the complainant was supposed  to repay Rs.2,07,000/- by  10.10.15 . The  O.Ps  wish to submit   that at present the said vehicle is  in the custody of the complainant, ,hence allegation of the complainant that the O.ps are trying to sale the vehicle as alleged by the complainant is totally denied and same is subject to strict proof on records.  The O.Ps further wish to submit that as per agreed terms and condition of the loan agreement  the rate of interest was @14.25 % p.a which is clear arises  the complainant is in due of Rs.70,123/- towards installment over dues  which is admitted fact by the complainant. and rest Rs 36,130/-  towards other over dues .  The DPC charging of 36% rate of interest instead of 9% rate of interest  as alleged by the  complainant and  same is subject to strict proof  on documents  . The O.ps state that the  case law mentioned by the complainant   in this para is not relevant to the facts of the present complainant. Hence  the O.Ps  prays  the Hon’ble  Forum to look into this aspect considering  Annexture A to j  as well as  dismiss the complaint  with cost.

            On the date of hearing we perused the record along with documents in  details and observed  that :

1.It is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the above vehicle taking financial assistance from the O.Ps on the strength of hypothecation agreement.

2.It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner subsequently became a defaulter in repayment of EMI in time for  which the O.Ps  have knocked the  door of the  Sole Arbitrator .

3. In the mean time it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner prayed in the original C.C.Case and in the petition U/S  13(3b)  of C.P. Act  to direct the O.P  not to take any coercive action against the vehicle  and not to recover the illegal outstanding amount as demanded by  the O.Ps. Thereafter this fora vide its order dt.12.11.15 directed the O.Ps not to take any coercive action till disposal of the case. Thereafter during the pendency  of the dispute the petitioner  fails to establish his case by filing any appropriate documents regarding charging 36% interest as DPC by the O.Ps. and any documents  that the above amount claimed  by the O.Ps  as outstanding is  illegal demand .  In the above circumstance it is admitted fact that the petitioner is a defaulter and he fails to pay the EMI in time of the above vehicle to the O.Ps and as per agreement the o.ps/  financer can take steps or to take possession of the financed vehicle as per law.  Hence it is our considered  view that there is  no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps  in view of the observation of the  Hon’ble National Commission  and Hon’ble State Commission  reported in 2011(3) CPR-113(NC) ,R.P 1178/2006 –N.C (Surendra ku  Agarwal vrs Telco finance .and others) , 19( 2009) CPJ-502- ( Union territory Ramesh ku sharma  vrs kotak Mahindra Pvt.Ltd ,    2006-CTJ-209 (SC)( M.D Orix Auto  Vrs.  Josvinder Singh)  .

            Hence the C.C.Case  is dismissed  against the O.Ps . No cost.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th  day of November,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.