Orissa

Cuttak

CC/55/2017

Sudarsan Barik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head,Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                        C.C.No.55/2017

SudarsanBarik,

S/O:LateSanandaBarik,

At:Divine Life Society,

ChidanandaGhat,Tulasipur,

P.O:Tulasipur,P.S:Cantonment,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                        ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Branch Head,

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

Branch Office at Plot No.692/A/4,

                  3^rd floor,Manisha Plaza,Link Road,

P.O:Arunodaya Market,

                    Town/Dist:Cuttack.

 

2.         Managing Director,SGBL Honda,

              At-Satichoura Chhak,PS-Lalbag,

​             Town/Dist:Cuttack.

3.     R.T.O,Cuttack,

Dist-Cuttack

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     25.04.2017

Date of Order:   15.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr.B..M. Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1  :Mr.A.K.Samal,Advocate.   

For the O.P no.2:                Self

For the O.P No.3:                 None.

 

Sri DebasishNayak,President.                                                  

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had approached the O.P No.1 for obtaining a loan of Rs.43,400/- and the same was sanctioned vide Loan Agreement No.ORCUCTTW00031 wherein he was required to repay the same from 24.8.2014 till 5.8.2016 @ Rs.2326/- per E.M.I in 24 number of instalments.  According to the complainant, he had paid all the said E.M.Is and also had paid an excess amount of Rs.2500/- for cheque bounce charge to O.P no.2.  Thus, the complainant has paid Rs.58,324/- + Rs.1200/- to O.P no.2 towards the E.M.Is for the financer.  There was additional charge of accessories of Rs.3000/- and tax and insurance of Rs.12,000/- which were paid by the complainant.  The vehicle was registered bearing Regd. No.OD-05J-6169.  The total cost of the vehicle was of Rs.64,486/-.  The moratorium period was for 30 days.  Inspite of paying the E.M.Is regularly, the vehicle of the complainant was seized by the O.P no.1 on 24.4.17 at 5 p.m. while it was being plied on the fly over at Phulnakhara square.  The complainant had paid all the E.M.Is to O.P no.1 alongwith excess amount by the time of seizure and thus he had no dues to be paid by him to O.Pno.1 or 2 and he was never a defaulter.  When he met O.P no.1 in this context, he was intimated by O.P no.1 that his vehicle was seized as because he had defaulted.  The complainant wanted release of his vehicle since because he has no dues left to be paid by him.  The O.Ps also intimated the complainant that his vehicle will only be released if he pays excess amount of money.  Due to such oblique motive of the O.Ps who wanted to exploit the complainant, the complainant had to file this case demanding therein a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his cost of litigation and a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the unfair trade practice by the O.Ps together with a direction to release his seized vehicle.  He has also sought for the agreement copy from the O.Ps.

He has filed copies of certain documents to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, out of the three O.Ps, O.P No.1 & 3 have filed their written version in this case.  According to the written version of O.P no.1, he had waived out an outstanding amount of Rs.8950/- which was lying upon the complainant to be paid in order to close the loan account of the complainant.  A memo to this effect is filed before this Commission on 25.6.19 alongwith the latest statement of account, loan agreement copy etc.  The O.P no.1 had also issued NOC to the complainant addressed to the R.T.O,Cuttack(O.P no.2) specifying that there is no dues lying to be paid by the complainant.  The said memo of O.P no.1 was filed before this Commission on 11.2.20 and according to him the matter has been settled outside the court.

            According to the written version of O.P no.3, which was filed by him in shape of a letter alongwith parawise comment, it is mentioned therein that on 24.4.17 O.P no.1 had seized the vehicle bearing No.OD-05J-6169 due to default payment in loan amount and the financier has not submitted form-36 for issuance of fresh registration certificate.  As per the official records, the owner of the said vehicle as mentioned is that it is the hire purchase agreement and after compliance of all the official procedures; the ownership thereafter can be recorded.

            He has filed copy of the ledger to support his stand to that effect.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps & practiceof unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

 

 

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

According to the complainant, he had paid the entire loan amount as per the E.M.I without being a defaulter and had also paid excess amount to the O.P no.1 towards his vehicle.  On the other hand, it is the contention of O.P no.1 that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.8950/- which was to be paid by the complainant but it was waived out after amicable settlement in between them outside of the court.  This contention of O.P no.1 gains no support as there is no scrap of document filed to that effect by the said O.P no.1.  Rather the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition gains momentum from the series of copies of documents as filed by him.  Thus, by seizing the vehicle of the complainant after the total loan being repaid, and when the complainant had not defaulted, it can clearly be said here in this case that there was deficiency in service and practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps who had acted arbitrarily and unilaterally.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is found to be maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.P no.1 being found to be liable here in this case is thus directed to compensate the complainant by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation cost and also to release the seized vehicle of the complainant forthwith if not done in the meanwhile.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                                                                                Sri DebasishNayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                                 Sri SibanandaMohanty

                                                                                                                                                    Member