OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBER .
Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 2012
Date of Filling : -18.01.2012.
Date of Order :- 25 .07.2017.
Jayanta Ku.Sahoo,S/O.Lalit Mohan Sahoo,
Vill/P.O.Sapuanali,Via-Bagadia,P.S.
Chhendipada, Dist.Angul. .
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
- Branch Manager,Cholamandalam,Investment
and Finance Company Ltd,At-Subhra Tower,
Hanuman Bazar,P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul.
2. Divisional Manager,Cholamandalam,
Investment and Finance Company Ltd,
At-Arnapurna Complex, 1st floor Lewis Road,B.J.B Nagar,Bhubaneswar,Dist.Khurda.
3. Head Office/Chairman, Cholamandalam,Investment and Finance Company Ltd,
At-Dare House,1st Floor 2, N.S.C. Bose Road,Chennai-600001.
_________________________________________Opp. partiers.
For the complainant :- Sri Md.Azad & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.parties :- Sri M.K.Panda & associates(Advs.).
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri D. C. Mishra, President.
The complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.parties not to sale the seized vehicle bearing No. OR-19D-3044 and to release the same in his favour after receiving the arrear EMIs amounting to Rs. 1,40,232 only and to pay compensation for loss, damage expenditure and harassment suffered by him due to illegal seizure of the vehicle by the opp.parties and to pay litigation cost.
2. Briefly stated the complainant’s case runs thus:-
That he had purchased a truck bearing Regd. No. OR19/D 3044 under hypothecation scheme by taking loan of Rs. 5,50,000.00 only from the opp.parties with flat rate of interest @ 10.5% per annum to be repaid in 34 installments commencing from December 2010 to till September 2013 out of which the first 19 EMIs was fixed @ Rs. 23,372.00 and rest 15 EMIs was fixed @ Rs.16,780.00. It is alleged that till January,2012 the complainant had paid Rs. 1,85,000.00 only but due to unavoidable financial difficulties and want of work he could not pay Rs. 1,40,232.00 till January,2012 ,for which the complainant requested the opp.parties to give sometime for payment and the opp.parties orally agreed/promised to accommodate but all on a sudden in January,2012 the Branch Manager (opp.party No.1) with his staffs forcibly snatched away the said vehicle from his possession. According to the complainant, he approached the opp.parties and reminded them about their promise and requested to give the vehicle but the opp.parties did not pay any heed. After seizer of the said vehicle the opp.party No.1 demanded the complainant to pay the entire loan amount with interest though the EMIs period was continuing up to September,2013 and threatened to sale the vehicle. The complainant also submitted that due to seizure of the vehicle before time, he is unable to earn his livelihood and repay the loan amount. Hence he has prayed for the reliefs as already stated in Para-1 of the judgement.
3. The opp.parties have contested the case by filing joint written objection, admitting the taking of loan by the petitioner but denying all other allegations and averments made by the complainant with prayer to dismiss the case as not maintainable ,there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice caused by the opp.parties. According to the opp.parties , there is provisions for arbitration in the loan agreement of the complainant and due to default in payment by the complainant arbitration proceeding No. 5946 of 2011 was initiated before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras,in which the Hon’ble High Court passed order ,authorizing Mr.S.Madendran, advocate commissioner to seize the vehicle and according to that direction the advocate commissioner executed the warrant and seized the vehicle at Chhendipada with police help on 12.1.12,for which the opp.parties have not committed any high handed action or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
4. In view of the above rival pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for consideration:-
I S S U E S :
- Whether the case is maintainable or not ?
- Whether the opp.parties can be directed not to sale the vehicle bearing No. OR 19/D 3044 and to release the same in favour of the complainant and compensation can be given to him?
- To what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?
Issue No.(i):- Admittedly the complainant has availed a loan of Rs. 5,50,000.00 only by executing loan agreement. The opp.parties have filed the copy of the loan agreement which reveals that there is provisions for arbitration proceeding in case of failure of the complainant to pay the EMIs regularly. In the present case the complainant has admitted in his petition that in between December,2010 to January ,2012 i.e within fourteen months he has refunded Rs. 1,85,000.00 when Rs. 3,27,208.00 was due .Thus he has defaulted in paying the EMIs. In arbitration case No. 5946 of 2011 the Hon’ble High Court of Madras have passed order for seizure of the vehicle by execution of warrant and have authorized advocate commissioner Mr.S.Mahendran for seizer of the vehicle who has seized the same by taking police help at Chhendipada on 12.1.2012. The letter of S.Mahendran addressed to IIC,Chendipada police station submitted by opp.parties in this case proves the fact. This fact has also not been disputed by the complainant. Since the vehicle has been seized as per direction of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in arbitration proceeding, where in the complainant was party, this case filed on 18.1.2012 i.e after seizer of the vehicle by the order of the Hon’ble High Court is not maintainable. In Revision Petition No. 10 of 2012 arising out of this case the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 1.2.2012 have observed that:-
“We have gone through the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras dt.22.12.2011 passedin A.No. 5946 of 2011 to whichthis present opp.party (complainant) is party as respondent and the present revision petitioners are applicants. On hearing the submission of the learned counsel and looking to the annexures, we find that there has been serious miscarriage of justice and over stepping of jurisdiction by the District Forum,Angul in the matter of passing of the impugned order in the Misc Case No. 3 of 2012 (arising out of this C.C.Case No.7 of 2012)”.
In theabove premises, the case is notmaintainable before this forum.
Issue No.(ii) & (iii):-In view of the discussion made above in issue No.(i) no reliefs can be granted as prayed for by the complainant as because the vehicle has been seized by the advocate commissioner on the strength of warrant issued by the Hon’ble High Court In A.No. 5946 of 2011. So the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs from this forum. However, in Revision Petition No. 10 of 2012 vide order dt. 12.9.2014, the Hon’ble State Commission have observed that :-
“In ourview, itwould be just andproper ,ifit is ordered that the vehicle shall not be sold ortransferred in any manner to any party till disposal ofConsumer Complaint No. 7 of 2012(this case) andat the same time it shall not be released in favourofthe opp.parties”.
From the aforesaid order it is clear thatnow thevehicleis with the opp.parties. If thecomplainant likes, he may persue the matter before the Hon’ble High Court of madras in A.No. 5946 of 2011 to get back thevehicleorcompensation.
- Hence ordered:-
: O R D E R :
The case is dismissed on contest by the parties butwithout cost. Thecomplainant is not entitled to get any reliefsin this forum asbecause the matterhas been adjudicated in A.No. 5946 of 2011 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras by virtue of loan agreement clause executed by the complainant.
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 25th July 2017 with
hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sri K.K.Mohanty), (Smt.S. Mallick),
