Sidhartha Prusty filed a consumer case on 24 Nov 2022 against Branch Head,M/s CaterPillar Financial Services India Pvt Ltd in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/22/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Dec 2022.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.22/2022
SidharthaPrusty,
S/O: BrahmanandaPrusty,
At:Mahimanagar,PO:Nayabazar,
P.S:Chauliaganj,Town/Dist:Cuttack. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
6thFkoor,Tower-B,PrestigeShantiniketan,
The Business Precinet,White Field Main Road,
Bengaluru,Stage:Karnataka,India,Pin-560048..
.
Regd. Office At-7thFloor,International Tech Park,
Chennai,TaramaniRoad,Taramani,Chennai,
State:Tamil Nadu,India,Pin-700113.
M/s. Caterpillar Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.,
C/O: GainwellCommosalesPvt. Ltd.,
Plot No.2132/5140,BJBNagar,Lewis Road,
Near Goutam Petrol Pump,Bhubaneswar,
Dist:Khorda,Odisha,Pin-751014.
At/PO:Chandinichowk,In front of SBI Main Branch,
Cuttack,Town/Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753002. ... Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 09.02.2022
Date of Order: 24.11.2022
For the complainant: Mr. S.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3: None.
For the O.P No.4 :Self.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had approached the O.Ps for availing loan from them in order to purchase a JCB machine worth of Rs.24,24,000/-. Accordingly, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had sanctioned a sum of Rs.20,45,062/- to the complainant and the rest of the amount of Rs.3,60,893/- was deposited by the complainant. A loan agreement was executed in-between the O.Ps and the complainant fixing 48 number of E.M.Is for repayment of the said loan @ Rs.55,665/- which was effective from 15.9.2020. The complainant had cleared E.M.Is for the months of September, October and November in the year 2020 but due to pandemic situation as because his JCB machine was not in operation he could not pay the E.M.I for the month of December,2020. On 29.1.21 he had paid one E.M.I as per the instruction of the O.P no.3 and again in the month of March,2021 he had paid another E.M.I but on 23.4.21 the complainant had received a pleader’s notice from O.P no.1 in the subject of demand-cum-termination of the loan and security agreement no.808700481. The O.P through the said letter had demanded the total outstanding dues of Rs.21,04,728/-, the complainant had sent his reply on 11.5.21 seeking for timeof three months in order to clear the outstanding dues but on 25.5.21 the complainant had received another pleader’s notice U/S-21 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996 for invocation and Arbitration dt.16.6.21. The complainant could not attend the Arbitration Proceeding at Bengaluru due to the pandemic situation for which the complainant again had sent a reply dt.2.6.21 through his counsel to the O.Ps. But on 29.7.21, the O.P No.3 alongwitha team had forcibly repossessed the JCB machine of the complainant with the help of Barkotepolice by virtue of the order of the Arbitration Proceeding dt.20.1.21 passed in M.A.No.27 of 2021. That the complainant had to approach this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 in order to supply him the bucket of the vehicle alongwith other accessories also and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.
He has filed copies of several document in order to prove his case.
2. On the other hand, out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, only O.P no.4, the RTO,Cuttack has filed his written version but O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 having not contested this case have been set exparte vide order dt.12.7.22.
3. The points for determination in this case are as follows:
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed
Issue no.ii.
Out of the three points, point no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.
As per the documents available together with the averments of the complaint petition, it is made to understand that the complainant had indeed purchased a JCB machine by obtaining finance from O.Ps no.1.2 & 3 which was hypothecated to the said O.Ps as per the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement executed between the complainant and O.Ps no.1,2 & 3. Law is very clear that in case of Loan Agreement, if the borrower fails to deposit promptly the monthly instalments as due from him, the financier has the right to repudiate the claim and proceed to repossess the financed vehicle/machine from the borrower. As per the settled decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court, the financier is not a service provider and thus here in this case, it can never be said that by repossessing the vehicle as per law for which the finance was advanced by O.Ps no.1 & 2, after default of payment by the complainant there was no deficiency noticed on the part of the O.Ps. Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.
Points no.i& iii.
From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
Case is dismissed on contest against O.P no.4 &exparte against O.Ps no.1,2 & 3 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 24th day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.