Orissa

Jharsuguda

cc/57/2014

SMT- Puspa Panday W/O-Debendra Panday - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM Magma Finance Co Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

P.R.M.Rao

19 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 57 OF 2014

 

Puspa Pandey (40 Yrs.),

W/O- Debendra Pandey,

RO: Budhijam, VRO Camp, 

PO/PS: Orient Colliery, Via- Brajrajnagar,

Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha……………………………….………………Complainant.

     

                                           

Versus

 

The Branch Manager,

Magma Fincorp Ltd.,

B.T.M Chock,Jharsuguda,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.………………………………...….…....….…...Opp. Party.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                  Shri P.M.R. Rao, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party                                   Shri A.K.Sahoo, Adv. Associates.

 

Date of Order: 19.05.2015

 

Present

 

                                            1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                            2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                            3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.

 

Shri S. L. Behera, President: - The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, he has purchased one Ten wheeler Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-23B-5376 which has been financed by the O.P for an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- only without interest. The complainant was liable to pay the loan amount in 45 nos. of regular monthly installments. The complainant has paid Rs.4,57,068/- only till the date of filing.  The complainant could be able to know that other financial companies are charging @ 9% to 10%  of interest on the loan amount but the O.P is charging more than 15% interest without disclosing and due to the said reason he could not be able to pay  some of the installments in time for which the O.P. is threatening the complainant to seize his vehicle, hence this case.

The O.P. appeared through their counsel after being noticed and submitted his written version wherein it has been stated that the complainant is a defaulter in making payments of installments. The O.P further submitted that the complainant has taken loan of Rs.7,30,000/- only excluding interest vide proposal No. PG/0195/R/10/000087 and with denying all the allegations imposed by the complainant, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Heard and perused the case record along with materials available.  As per the account statement dtd.20.08.2014 filed by the complainant bearing proposal No. PG/0195/R/10/000087, loan agreement Code. HO/G/0195/10/0003166 the complainant was liable to pay Rs.3,05,168/- only towards rental and including all the charges, he was liable for Rs.4,34,420/- only in total. 

The O.P has sanctioned loan facility to the complainant to purchase the vehicle, against which the complainant should also repay the same in time but sometimes he fails to do so.  However, the O.P complied the Interim Order passed by this Hon’ble Forum and now the said vehicle is in possession of the complainant which the complainant must repay the outstanding dues in time.

In view of above circumstances, we do not found any merit on the part of complainant, hence we dismiss the case with no costs.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 19^th   day of May’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.              

          I Agree.                       I Agree,                                                                                                

                                         

         S.K.Ojha, Sr.Member        A.Nanda, Member (W)         S. L. Behera President                 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

      S. L. Behera, President.