DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 49 OF 2014
Vir Bahadur Singh (36 Yrs),
S/O- Late Virendra Pratap Singh,
RO: TRL Colony Qr. No.C / 63,
PO/PS: Belpahar Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha………….…………Complainant.
Versus
The Branch Manager,
Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,
Sambalpur Branch, Balaji Tower 2nd Floor,
In front of Diamond Laundry,
G.M.College Road,Dist: Sambalpur, Odisha.………..….…..….…...Opp. Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri P.R. Singhdeo, Adv. & Associates.
For the Opp. Party Shri A.K.Sahoo, Adv. Associates.
Date of Order: 02.03.2015
Present
1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.
2. Smt. A.Nanda, Member.
Shri S. L. Behera, President: - The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, the complainant obtained finance facilities availed from Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,Sambalpur and purchased two numbers of Ten wheeler Trucks on executing Hypothecation Agreement to be repaid the finance amount as per the installment fixed and agreed by him. The complainant has claim to have paid Rs. 16,50,000/- only in respect to the vehicle bearing Regn. OR-23-F-5272 and failed to pay some dues in respect to another vehicle bearing Regn.No. OR-23-B-5877 due to financial problem and due to the theft of one vehicle.
The O.P. appeared through his counsel after being noticed and submitted that the O.P claim the complainant is a chronic defaulter having total outstanding loan dues amounting to Rs.5,93,040/- only as on dtd. 10.11.2014 and other charges
amounting to Rs.2,32,995/- only also in defaulted in payment of outstanding dues, it threating for repossession of the vehicle. In this case an interim order was passed by this Forum directed the O.P to not to seize the vehicle during the pendency of this case so also advise the complainant to pay monthly installments regularly, the O.P denied to have render to any deficient service rather claim to have charged over due charges rightly on default of payment of installment amount. And accordingly prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Heard and perused the case record along with materials available. The complainant had admitted in his complaint petition that he is the registered owner of two numbers of trucks and claims to have purchase the same by availing loan from the O.P for maintenance of his livelihood. The claim of the O.P is that the loan facilities was given to the complainant to purchase multi wheel trucks for commercial purpose, there is no doubt , due to admission of the complainant regarding having two trucks, can be hold the availability of the loan facility to be for commercial purpose. Further on going through the entire record, we came to know that the matter in dispute in account and the same cannot be resolved in this forum rather the same can be adjudicated by Civil Court. However the finance vehicle is still in the possession of the complainant. We are also not empower to pass any order on the prayer made by the complainant especially relating to the finance correct statement of account as the accounts are to be maintained by and to be agreed by as per the term and condition of the agreement.
In view of the above observation, we dismiss the complaint accordingly and vacate the interim order passed by this Forum on dtd. 18.08.2014 with liberty to the complainant to seek his grievance before the Civil Court having jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 2nd day of March’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.
I Agree.
Anamika Nanda, Member S. L. BeheraPresident
Dictated and corrected by me
S. L. Behera, President.
