Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/85/2014

Bindeswari kumar Singh S/O-Shiv Shankar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM Srei Equipment Finance Co Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.R.Singh Deo

18 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 85 OF 2014

 

 

Bindeswari Kumar Singh (28 Yrs),

S/O- Shiv Shankar Singh,

RO-Shanti Nagar, PO- Bandhbahal ,PS: Banharpali,

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

     

                                           

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager,

Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.,

Sambalpur Branch, Sagar Junction,

Ainthapali, Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

 

2. Regional Manager,

Srei Equipment Finance Ltd.

Near Reliance Fruit Juice,

Bhubaneswar (Odisha)………………….…..….…..….…….....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                            Shri P.R.Singh Deo, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party                             Shri Bighna Raj Panda, Adv. Associates.

 

Date of Order: 18.05.2015

 

Present    

  

                                           1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

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

                                           3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member(W).

 

Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member : -  This case is on allegation against the O.Ps for commitment of deficiency in service as the O.Ps have repossessed   the vehicle from the complainant without any prior intimation and after being passed Interim Order by this Honb’le Forum, the O.Ps did not comply, harassed the complainant after receiving the awarded amount from the complainant.

The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant has purchased one Ten wheeler Truck bearing  Regn. No.OR-16E-0956 for maintaining his livelihood which was financed by the O.Ps. The O.Ps have financed Rs. 20,84,300/- only with interest which was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 Nos of instalments started from dtd 05.02.2012 to 05.12.2015.  The complainant was paying the monthly instalments regularly through Cheques of SBI and through collection officers of O.Ps and has paid Rs. 13,47,846/- only excluding Rs. 1,50,000/- only upto dated 31.08.2014 . The O.Ps have seized the vehicle on dt. 21.09.2014 illegally and arbitrarily without any prior notice to the complainant and demanding entire loan amount with interest and threatening to auction sale  the vehicle. The complainant approached several times to release the vehicle on receipt of defaulted amount but the O.Ps did not take any heed, as such finding no other way the complainant knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum seeking adequate relief by filing   a Misc. Case petition praying for an Interim Order in his favour along with main complaint petition supported with relevant documents.

         After   hearing on Misc. Case petition from the complainant, this Hon’ble Forum has pleased to pass an Interim Order in favour of the complainant directing the O.P No. 1 to hand over the vehicle in question within five days on receipt of Rs. 1,22,000/- only out of the defaulted outstanding dues ( till the date of repossession of vehicle ) of Rs. 1,74,103/-  only and the balance outstanding dues was to  be receipt by the O.Ps in 04 Nos of equal monthly instalments along with regular incoming EMIs .

         Being aggrieved with such Interim Order, the O.Ps preferred Revision before Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (here in after referred as “State Commission”) wherein the O.Ps represented the outstanding dues of Rs. 8,58,491/- only before the Hon’ble State Commission. Hon’ble State Commission directed this Hon’ble Forum to give a chance to be heard to the O.Ps after filing show cause.

         The O.Ps filed his show cause as written version challenging on territorial jurisdiction as well as maintainability of the case. The O.Ps submitted that the complainant was sanctioned the loan of Rs. 18,27,150/- only  which was to be returned by the complainant in 47 Nos of EMIs of Rs. 44,600/- only and he has pending outstanding of Rs. 8,58,491/- only and the O.Ps have terminated the clause of agreement and demanding the entire pending outstanding of Rs. 9,54,298/- only by sending notice dt 14.10.2014 .

On hearing of the O.Ps this Hon’ble Forum again pleased to pass an Interim Order by considering both the parties directing to both the parties by making crystal clear on the outstanding dues amount till the date of seizure of Rs. 1,74,103/- only where the O.Ps were representing Rs. 6,24,400/- only towards future rental excluding other charges and were demanding Rs. 9,54,298/- only in total from the complainant. This Hon’ble Forum directed the complainant to deposit Rs.1,45,000/- only in total excluding Rs. 1,22,000/- only which the O.Ps have already received in shape of Demand Draft bearing No. 248632 dt. 06.12.2014 from the complainant (which means the complainant was to pay Rs. 23,000/-only more to the O.Ps). The balance outstanding dues was to be paid by the complainant in 04 Nos. of EMIs including incoming EMIs and the other charges were to be decided at the time of final hearing. The O.P. No. 1 (The Branch Manager,  Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. , Sambalpur ) was directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant after receiving the said total amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- only from the complainant.

On receipt of copies of the said interim order the complainant complied the same by paying Rs. 23,000/- only in shape of Demand Draft bearing No. 248765 dt. 28.01.2015 against which the O.Ps issued one Money Receipt bearing No. SEFL/04/411788 Dt. 30.01.2015, so also issued one another Money Receipt bearing NO. SEFL/04/411787 Dt. 30.01.2015 against Rs. 1,22,000/- only received earlier through D.D. bearing No. 248632 dt.06.12.2014 of Punjab National Bank. But the O.Ps did not comply as per the direction of the Interim Order passed by this Hon’ble Forum till date.

The complainant prayed before this Hon’ble Forum on releasing of his vehicle as he has complied as per the direction of the said Interim Order but the O.Ps are not taking any heed. The complainant filed a petition under section 25 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as the present fact and circumstances attracting towards the same. Considering the facts and circumstances this Honb’le Forum allowed the said petition of complainant and advised to furnish the details of properties of the O.Ps including name and address of the O.Ps to carry out the procedures for implementation of under section 25 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.

But the complainant being a lay man could only be able to furnish the  required details of property of the O.Ps, rather he furnished the Bank account of the O.Ps Bearing No.000651000204 of ICICI Bank, Kolkata and the address of branch office situated at Sambalpur which is on rent. To satisfy the proper procedures including Rules and Regulations of U/s.25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the above mentioned informations are not sufficient for carrying out the provision of U/s.25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus, this Hon’ble Forum posted the case for final hearing by rejecting the said petition filed by the complainant.

Heard on the main complaint petition in length from both the parties and gone through minutely of the case record and the materials available. The O.Ps challenged on maintainability and territorial jurisdiction of the case. On maintainability, we have to go through definition specially been mentioned U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, as:-

            “hires or avails of any services for a consideration xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes;

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;”

           

If we minutely observe the aforesaid definition and compare with the present complaint case then, the complainant undoubtedly purchased a truck but the dispute is not with the seller or trader of the truck rather dispute is with the financier who is a service provider by providing services towards arranging of finances to the complainant. The complainant, being an unemployed person taken loan facility to ply truck and through that earning he will manage his daily life or can say for his livelihood by means of self- employment. Thus, the case of absolutely maintainable.

 

So far as the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, though the Offices are at Sambalpur, Bhubaneswar and the vehicle has been seized at Rourkela, but the O.P company was/is doing business from Bandhbahal, Dist-Jharsuguda through its Authorized Officers / Agents. The Authorized Officers / Agents explained the terms and conditions of finance at the residence of the complainant at Bandhbahal, Dist-Jharsuguda, where he convinced and paid the initial payment / down payment at Bandhbahal through cheque of State Bank of India, Bandhbahal, simultaneously the collection agents were collecting monthly installments from Bandhbahal, thus the part of cause of action arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honb’le Forum and on the above circumstances U/S 11(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, has satisfies as follows :-

 

“the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 

 

Besides all these technicalities, it was a simple matter of dispute between the parties, but the O.Ps made it a most complicated one. The only matter of dispute was on outstanding dues towards installment of Rs.1,74,103/-only till the date of repossession of the vehicle, out of which the O.Ps have received Rs.1,22,000/-only on dtd.06.12.2014 and further received Rs.23,000/-only on dtd.30.01.2015(i.e.,Rs.1,45,000/-only in total).There is difference of merely Rs.29,103/- only on monthly installment which the complainant was agreed to pay in installments along with regular EMIs. As the term of contract is in force, the outstanding towards other charges could be recovered / considered by the O.Ps as per his sweet will at the end of contract but, the O.Ps stayed / been rigid on the only point of recovering the present dues including the future rentals and others charges amounting Rs.09,54,298/- only by simply terminating the terms and conditions of the loan agreement himself alone without any consent of complainant, which has been executed between the parties. Such activities of the O.Ps denotes bad in the eye of both settled principles of law as well as principles of natural justice. The O.Ps also failed to prove whether they have served any prior notice properly to the complainant before repossessing the vehicle of the complainant and termination of contract.

Repossession of vehicle without prior intimation / notice, so also non- compliance of order of the Forum after receiving the awarded amount from the complainant enlisted and arrows towards clearly gross negligent / deficient in service, unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps and also non-compliance of an order of the forum reflects towards dis-obedience of any court / Forum orders.

It is also noticed that while the O.Ps adopted his rigidity views to this Hon’ble Forum, then what and how far he could have been behaved with the complainant, who is a lay man / common Man, such types of activities should be discouraged.

Relying on the above mentioned observations and analysis, the present case is allowed with the Orders as follows :-

ORDER

 

1. The O.P.No.1 (The Branch Manager, Srei Equipment Finance Ltd., Sambalpur) is hereby directed to release the vehicle bearing Regn. No. OR-16E-0956 in favour of the complainant in good running condition as it was on the date of repossession.

 

2. The O.P.No.1 is hereby further directed to pay to the complainant, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per day from the date of repossession i.e dtd. 21.09.2014 till the date of its realization towards mental agony, harassment including financial loss and litigation costs.

 

3. The above mentioned orders are to be carried out within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order, failing which the O.P.No.1 shall be liable for interest @10% per annum on the above mentioned awarded amount till the date of its realization.      

 

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 18^th day of May’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.              

I Agree,                                I Agree,                                                                                          

                                          

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

Dictated and corrected by me,

 

      S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member.