Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/20/2018

MANOJ KUMAR SAHOO - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.M, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MR.D.K.NAYAK

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                                            JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct to the opposite parties not to repossess the TAFE MF 7250 Tractor bearing No.OD 21 E 5539 supply a copy of the loan agreement, current account statement, receive the installment for the loan without adjusting the same in any other charges and to exonerate the complainant from any other unnecessary charges and pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant being an educated and unemployed youth had purchased one TAFE MF 7250 Tractor in the year 2015 being financed by opposite party No.1 & 2. The illegal action of the opposite parties attempting to seize the tractor without any justifiable reason and without sanction of law/without prior notice, with the help of muscle men, which amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which is against the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The opposite party No.1 assured the complainant to provide finance and subsidy for tractor and sanctioned Rs.4,76,083/- and which will be repaid in 47 E.M.I. @ Rs.14,220/- and the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- for margin money along with the cost of registration and insurance to opposite party No.1. The opposite parties have not supplied the loan agreement at the time of sanction of the loan. After a month when the registration certificate did not reach at the house of the complainant he enquired about the matter and came to know that the dealer failed to produce all the necessary papers at RTA, Jagatsinghpur. The complainant finding no other alternative stopped plying the vehicle in the month of January, 2016 and the vehicle kept idle and it is too difficult to pay the installment in time for him. The dealer called the complainant over telephone for a regular maintenance and the settlement of the matter in dispute and on 01.02.2017 the complainant handed over the vehicle to the dealer and due to failure of the settlement the complainant filed a C.C. case bearing No.62/2017 before this Commission and the same has been compromised and the case has been withdrawn. On 15.02.2018 the opposite parties without serving any notice regarding the outstanding with proper calculation and adjustment reached near the residence of the complainant to repossess the tractor where it has been parked through muscle men but failed to do so as the vehicle could not move due to some mechanical problem and now threatening to repossess his vehicle at any time with help of break down service and without any settlement in spite of several request. It is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair/monopoly trade practice of opposite parties.

            The opposite parties have filed their written version stating as under;

            The complaint is not maintainable at all, since the complainant is not a consumer as far as the scope of the definition provided in Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works Vrs P.S.G Industrial Institute cited in 1995 AIR-SC-1428 has clearly explained that a person who purchased a vehicle for earning livelihood by self employment does not possess a valid Driving License to drive the vehicle, would not be a consumer”. The complainant has failed to discharge his contractual obligations to pay the installments in time and law in this regard is well settled that party to a contract who has failed to discharge his contractual obligations is not entitled for any relief in a court of equity. The recovery agents had ever visited the house of the complainant still then that should not be construed as an attempt to repossess the vehicle. Normally the recovery agents visit the houses of the defaulter customers in order to persuade them to clear their liabilities. The dispute pertains to a vehicle which was under finance from the opposite parties under agreement No.TFE-3324711 on 10.7.2015 while he was not able to repay the agreed EMI in time and in this loan agreement, there are two clauses namely, the ‘Arbitration’ clause and ‘Jurisdiction’ clause. The parties to the agreement have specifically agreed that the disputes, if any, between the parties have to be referred to the sole Arbitrator for Arbitration. 

            The loan was taken and the vehicle was purchased in 1^st week of May, 2015. The loan was repaid in 47 EMIs from 10.8.2015 to 10.6.2019. But as on 04.4.2018 complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,79,492.15 paisa towards overdue of Rs.1,89,589.28 paisa.

            The prayer of the complainant to supply copy of loan agreement and current account statement is hereby allowed. The opposite parties shall supply the same to the complainant and since the contract/agreement is already over since June, 2019 we do not interfere in the account statement and the opposite parties shall not claim any penal interest for the period the matter was subjudiced before this Commission while settling the amount dues against the complainant and in case of nonpayment, the opposite parties are at liberty to repossess the asset as per law. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of without any cost.

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th Sept., 2022.