IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                        2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                        3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                             Dated the 2nd day of  January ,2015.

                                                                       C.C.Case No.262 of 2012

Sri Biswanath Rana   S/O Late Narayan Rana

At. Paikarapur (Sobera) P.O Dangadi,

P.S. Jajpur Road, Dist. Jajpur.                                                     ……………… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                   (Versus)

1. Authorized Signatory Magma Sarchi Finance Ltd,24-park street, Kolkata.

2.  Authorized Signatory ,Magma Sarchi Finance Ltd,1^st floor, Nirmal plaza

     At.Forest park,P.O. Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.

3.  Authorized Signatory ,Branch Office of Magma Sarchi Finance Ltd,

     At. Chorda By pass Road ,P.O .Jajpur Road ,Dt. jajpur.

                                                                                                           ..                                                                                                                                                                   …………………………Opp.Parties.                                          For the Complainant:                Sri A.K.Pani,  Advocate.

For the Opp.Party                      Sri A.K.Pahil ,Advocate.

                                                            Date of order            :    02. 01. 2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.P alleging deficiency in service due to non-issuance of NOC against the financed vehicle bearing No.0R-09G-3765 .

                        The brief fact of the present dispute as stated in the complain petition is that the petitioner being an unemployed youth in order to maintain his livelihood under self employment purchased the above cited vehicle by availing loan of Rs.729,000/- from O.P no.2. For availing such loan the petitioner has executed hypothecation agreement  and as per term and conditions of hypothecation agreement and repayment schedule the petitioner has cleared up the entire loan amount along with interest in between 01.01.2006  to 01.09.2009. As regards D.P.C it is stated by the petitioner that in the monthly installment the O.Ps. have received the DPC which has been mentioned  in the installment receipts issued by the O.Ps and in total the petitioner has paid Rs.51,155/- towards DPC. Accordingly it is alleged by the petitioner that as against the repayment of total loan amount, the O.Ps. are not issuing the NOC against the financed vehicle instead of several approach for which the petitioner finding no other way has come with this complain petition for redressal his grievance with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to issue NOC against the financed vehicle as well as award compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony.

                        After appearance the O.Ps. have filed the objection denying the allegation of the petitioner. In the objection the O.P. has taken the following defence:

1. Vide para-13 of the objection it is stated by O.P. that this Fora gets no jurisdiction to decide the present dispute since as per term and condition of hypothecation agreement the grievance of the petitioner is to be decided by the Arbitrator.
2. The main plea taken by the O.P. in the objection is that due to non payment of DPC amounting to Rs.128817/- the NOC has not yet been issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of the financed vehicle bearing No.0R-09G-3765 since as per hire purchase agreement the DPC are fixed @ 3% per day.

            After perusal of the record along with relevant documents we are inclined to come to our conclusion as per our observation stated below:

1. Admittedly the petitioner has filed the present dispute due to non issuance of NOC in respect of the financed vehicle since according to petitioner he has cleared up the entire loan amount as per  repayment schedule. As against the repayment of total loan amount by the petitioner the O.P. vide para-14 of the objection has stated that due to non payment of DPC amounting to Rs.128817/- the NOC has not been issued in respect of the financed vehicle . The above clarification from the side of  the O.P clearly go to establish that the petitioner has cleared up the total outstanding  loan amount as per repayment schedule except DPC amounting to Rs.128817/-since the payment of total loan amount by the petitioner is not challenged by the O.P.
2. In view of the above claim of the O.P. towards outstanding DPC it is stated by the petitioner that he has paid Rs.51.155/- towards DPC. After verification of the payment receipt it is observed that the O.P. has collected DPC separately in each payment receipt.
3. Similarly the O.P vide para-14 of the objection dt.7^th.November-2012 has stated that as per agreement DPC has charged 3% per day. In this context we are in the considered view that after payment of total loan amount non-issuance of NOC as well as such charging of DPC @ 3% per day not only violates the observation of Hon’ble State Commission and National Commission reported in 2009(4)CPR-446-Himanchal Pradesh, 2012(1)CPR-107-Delhi, 2011(1) CPR-223(NC) respectively but also violates the guide line of Hon’ble Odisha High Court and Supreme Court reported in WP (C) No.17720/2008,2001-AIR-3095-SC,wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court  are in the view that the O.P is not entitle to charge DPC @ 36% per annum instead of 9%.
4. As  regards the plea taken by O.P  that in view of the arbitration clause in the hypothecation agreement this Fora  gets no jurisdiction is also not tenable in the eye of law as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2008(2) CPR-26  102-NC,wherein it is held that:

“ arbitration clause is no bar for deciding the dispute in the Fora.

In view of the above observation to meet the ends of justice we like to dispose of the dispute as per order below:

                                                                        O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is disposed of with direction :-

1. The O.P. is directed to recalculate the DPC @9% interest per annum and the recalculation statement shall be served to the petitioner by R.P within 30 days  after receipt of the order.
2. At the time of re-calculating the DPC the total payment amount towards DPC which has been paid by the petitioner in the payment receipt shall be taken into consideration.
3. In case the petitioner has paid excess amount the same shall be refunded with 9% interest per annum to the petitioner along with NOC.
4. After re-calculation of DPC @9% per annum if the petitioner is liable to pay some amount the same shall be paid by the petitioner within 15 days after receipt of the re-calculation statement and after receipt of the amount from the petitioner  the O.P shall issue NOC within 15 days .

          This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 2nd day of January ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                                     (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                                        Member.                                                                       

            President.                                             Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

 (Miss Smita Ray)                                                                       (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

       Member.                                                                                           Member.