Orissa

Cuttak

CC/129/2015

Soudagar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B M Mohapatra

23 May 2017

ORDER

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

C.C No.129/2015

 

Soudagar Sahoo,

At:Khanduali,PO:Radhakishorepur,

PS:Khuntuni,Dist:Cuttack.                                                             … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.        Branch Head,

TATA Finance Ltd.,

Keshari Complex,Kharavela Nagar,

                   Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda

 

2.        R.T.O,Angul.                                                                                   … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     04.12.2015

Date of Order: .23.05.2017.

 

For the complainant        :       Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                     :       None

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case is that the complainant had availed a finance from O.P No.1 to purchase a truck i.e. OR-19A-9394 and registered the same with R.T.O,Anugul(Annexure-1).  The copies of loan document were not given to the complainant by O.P No.1.  However the loan agreement bears No.5000246575 as per money receipt.  That since the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,07,500/- and has repaid Rs.8,77,815/- including interest, the complainant should have been issued with NOC and his vehicle should have been declared hypothecation free but the same was not done.  The complainant issued notice to O.P No.1 to issue the required NOC vide his letters dt.30.10.2010 and 28.02.2011(Annexure-2 & 3) but it yielded no result.  Finding no other way, the complainant has filed this case with this Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed compensation of rs.2,00,000/- and also to direct the O.P No.1 to issue NOC, to return the cheques.
2. Vide misc. case dt.27.11.2015 the complainant has also prayed to supply him the copies of loan documents and also to direct the O.P No.1 not to seize the vehicle and to return the security cheques or not to use the same.  On 01.01.2016 this Hon’ble Forum has passed an interim order and has directed the O.P No.1 not to take any coercive steps against complainant’s vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-19A-9394 (truck).   On 1.5.2017 the O.Ps were set exparte.
3. On 09.12.2016 the O.P No.1 although entered appearance did not file any written version nor participated in the hearing.
4. We have gone through the case in details and perused the documents as filed by the complainant.  The complainant has not filed copy of any documental proof regarding the loan amount availed, amount repaid etc.  He has also not filed copy of any letter given to him by the O.P No.1.  The complainant has only filed Annexures-1,2 & 3.  Vide Annexure-1 he has submitted the registered certificate of the vehicle which was registered with R.T.O,Anugul.  Annexure-2 is a letter addressed to O.P No.1 on 30.10.2010 wherein the complainant had enclosed a D.D No.910454 dt.30.10.2010 on S.B.I,Athagarh for Rs.19,700/- towards the loan dues payable by him.  Vide Annexure-3 the complainant has requested the O.P No.1 on 28.02.2011 to issue NOC in his favour and to cancel the hypothecation letter.  The O.P NO.1(Tata Finance Ltd.) belongs to Bhubaneswar whereas the O.P No.2(RTO) belongs to Anugul.  The complainant has indicated vide his letter dt.28.02.2011 that he has repaid the dues to the O.P. No.1 through Bank cheque of some Bank’s branch at Oranda (Bank’s name not indicated),Dist:Cuttack(Annexure-3- page-2,Sl No.5 & 6).  He had also indicated vide his letter dt.30.10.2010 that he had send a Bank draft to O.P No.1 from S.B.I,Athagarh.(Anenxure-2).  It was held by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of S.K.Jyengar Vrs. Bombay Hospital & Medical Research and Centre and others (2001(1) CPR(29) NC that “the mere fact that the amount of initial deposit for the flat was remitted through the branch of Vijaya Bank at Chandigarh will not entitle the complainant to contend that any part of the cause of action had arisen in Chandigarh”.  Similarly in this case even if the complainant had send cheque/draft to O.P No.1 from the Bank branch situated within the District of Cuttack it does not entitle the complainant to contend that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances, it is clear that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  Hence the case is dismissed.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 23^rd  day of May,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                             Member.

 

                                                                                                                                       (Sri D.C. Barik)                                                                                                                                                                                                             President.                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                 

                                            (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                                                  Member(W).