Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/88/2014

Pradeep Kumar Mitra S/O-Late Amiya Kumar Mitra - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM TATA MOTERS Finance Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Abdul Zalil

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 88 OF 2014

Pradeep Kumar Mitra (65 Yrs),

S/O-  Late Amiya Kumar Mitra,

RO: Gumadera , PO/PS: Belpahar,

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

                                                 

Versus

 

1. Branch Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

At- Sambalpur Branch,Balaji Towers,

GM College Road, Sambalpur,

PO/PS/Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.

 

2. Chandan Srivastav, Collection Agent,

S/O: Akhilesh Srivastav,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.

At: Mahavir Nagar, Brajrajnagar,

PO/PS: Brajrajnagar,

Dist; Jharsuguda, Odisha…………..………..…..….…..….…...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                          Shri Abdul Zalil, Adv. & Associates.

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

 

Date of Order: 25.02.2015

Present

                                                     1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

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

                                                     3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member

Shri S. L. Behera, President: - This is a complaint made by the complainant against the financing Agency of Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,Sambalpur alleging deficiency in finance service wherein allegation regarding wrong calculation in statement of account and charge sought illegally are made along with threating to seize the financed vehicle in default of illegal claim.  The complainant obtained a loan under hypothecation purchase scheme to earn her livelihood in order to purchase a vehicle.  Accordingly it is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle bearing Regn.No. OR-16-E-3237 was purchase being financed by the O.P finance company under executing of an agreement a sum of Rs.25,30,000/- only was finance to be repaid within dtd. 11.12.2016 and the same will be cleared in 57 nos. of EMIs.  @ Rs.67,600/- only.  The complainant claims that he was paying the EMIs. regularly but disputed the statement issued on 17.11.2014, according to the complainant amount charge under the head ODC and other charges despite regular payment is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant prays this Forum for a direction to the O.Ps to submit proper calculation, not to seize the vehicle, release the vehicle after seizure to refund the penalty/ fine amount charged along with compensation.   

Being notice the O.P.s finance company appeared through their counsel and filed its preliminary objection denying all the allegation made by the complainant except the factum of finance amount stated by him.  Due to existence of arbitration clause in the loan agreement the O.Ps. claim the complaint to be not maintainable.  The O.Ps. claim an outstanding dues of Rs.4,51,380/- only towards installment dues and Rs.1,27,267/- only towards over due charges in their loan account statement dtd. 17.11.2014. Accordingly the O.Ps. claim for dismissal of the complaint due to non-maintainability of the complaint and the matter in dispute is to be solved in the civil court. Citing various decisions relating to non-maintainability of the complaint the O.Ps. sought for its rejection.

On perusal of the complaint petition and preliminary objection files by the parties and after heard from concerned counsels for the parties.  It is not disputed that the complainant has availed finance facilities to purchase a vehicle from the O.Ps wherein as per the agreement made between the parties the finance amount was to be repaid within a specified term as per the EMIs. fixed in the agreement.  In this complaint, the complainant claims to have paid the amount agreed by her regularly but the O.Ps. claim the complainant is a chronic defaulter who is having lacs of rupees outstanding,  what appears to us, after going through the entire evidence on record, this a case relating to loan matter also dispute arises in  accounting the amount in statement of the account and non-payment of installment dues along with OD charges by the complainant.

The O.P has file some decisions passed by different appellate authorities and submit that during the pendency or disposal of any arbitration proceeding in terms of higher purchase agreement the case in respect to the same matter is not maintainable in this forum. Hence in reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) (9) Supreme Court cases-230-Tata Finance Ltd Vrs. Ajay Kumar Biswal & Others, Hon’ble national Commission, New Delhi reported in 2006 ( 3) CPR-339 (NC) in the case of installment supply limited Vrs. Kangra Ex Service man Transport Co & Ano. held that “ the complaint cannot be decided by the consumer for a after an arbitration award is already passed”.

We do not considered to go into deep into the accounting procedure especially when dispute in account has been arose.

In view of the above decisions and observation the complaint petition is dismissed without any cost, with a liberty to the complainant to seek her redressal if any before the civil court having jurisdiction to entertain the same.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 25^th day of February’ 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.