Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/7/2017

Manoj Kumar Mahakud - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Manoj Kumar Mahanta

23 Jun 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, KENDUJHAR

                                    CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 7 OF 2017

Manoj Kumar Mahakud aged about 30 years,

S/o: Arjun Kumar Mahakud ,

A/t: Ukuchabeda, P.O: Basantapur,

P.S Pandapada, Dist.: Keonjhar…………………………………………………………………Complainant

Vrs

Branch Manager,

Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., Keonjhar,

A/t: Sirajuddin Chhak (Near Bank Of Baroda),

P.S: Town, Dist.: Keonjhar………………………………………………………………………………O.P Parties

 

PRESENT:

Shri Purushottam Samantara, President

Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

Advocate for Complainant- Manoj Kumar Mahakud

Advocate for OP-A.K Pattnaik & R.R Rana 

 

Date of filling-10.02.2017                                                                  Date of order-23.06.2017

1. Sri Purusottam Samantara – The complainant has availed a loan of Rs 2, 19,258/- from magma finance and paid a sum of Rs 1, 70,000/- in down payment. The vehicle procured is Mahindra maximo bearing registration no – OD-09B-4387.

2. Averred, the finance was made in the year 2013. The EMI was Rs 6,800/- per month in 47 installments. Further averring that the due to machinery defect of the said vehicle, the petitioner faild to pay the installment from July 2016 to Nov 2016, and already paid 33 installment amounting to Rs 2,21,258/-.

3. The complainant also stated, the opposite party has issued pre-sale notice on dt 24.01.2017 and demanding a sum of Rs 1, 00,735/- giving a time span of seven days, and seized the vehicle arbitrarily and illegally.

4.The seizure of the vehicle, has made sustained loss of income and irreparable loss in non- depositing the road tax, fitness, insurance & pollution and heavy constrain in maintain of his livelihood. Prayed to pass an order /or made direction that deemed fit and proper under the law and release the vehicle along with compensation & cost, relied on original receipt and affidavit.

5. In pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared & contested the case contending the complaint is totally frivolous and contrary to the well established law and binding judicial precedents.

6. Further the complaint is not maintainable, the matter is in between borrower and lender and does not fall under within consumer definition and as per agreement any disputes arises require arbitration.

7. The O.P also submitted in the present case the customer has availed three vehicular loan for which he by no means come within the ambit of “consumer “ the complainant has indulged in profit making by plying multiple vehicle and engaging driver and not for earning for livelihood.

8. Prayed the O.Ps is not at issued with the complainant on any question of law or of fact and as there is no deficiency of service by the O.Ps, the forum may be pleased to pass necessary order and dismiss the complaint.

9. Heard the counsels and perused the material on record. on the perusal of record , we do not find any material on loan finance and certificate of registration in endorsement of financed company extending loan on hypothecation or hire purchase.

10. But, it is not in disputes that the finance is extended up to Rs 2, 11,258/- from magma finance (P) Ltd and agreed to repay the total in 47 equal installment @ Rs 6,800/- per month.

11. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid Rs 2, 21,258/- from Oct 2013 June 2016 toward repayment and failed from July 2016 to Nov 2016, being of defaulting period.

12. Further no document on evidence is available that the petitioner owned multiple vehicles and indulged in commercial activity in earning large scale profit rather in availing service, the complainant is a consumer and by consumer protection Act section 3, it has ample jurisdiction to adjudicate.

13. The O.P has not filed the agreement copy nor also the certificate of registration, on the status of possession and title, in absence of same nothing bars adjudication or only assertion leads to believability.

14. Rather we consider, the O.Ps have committed negligence in seizing the running vehicle and under the settled principle, non – giving the motor vehicle tax and non ensuring necessary insurance has jeopardize the sole backbone in earning for livelihood and for such period, the O.P is liable to compensate during such period.

Under above noted circumstance, we consider the complainant repayment as goes like this:-

1                                                                                    (47) EMI Rs 6,800/-per month x 47 =Rs 3, 19,600/-

(2)All ready received                                                                                                                          =Rs 2, 19,000/-

                                                                                                                                                                    =Rs 1, 00,600/-

No of default installment charges

July 2016 to Nov 2016 5 month x 200                                                                                  Rs1, 000/-                 

All marginal miscellaneous charges                                                                                          Rs 5,000/-

                                                                                                                                                                      Rs 1, 06,600/-

O.P charges are found irrationally imposed and not back by any RBI circular and NBFC guidelines hence totally waived off so also no charges have to be collected from the O.P in view of the nonpayment of motor tax and non ensuring insurance as the vehicle remain seized so liability can’t be fixed entirely.

In such premises, it is considered, the petitioner is to repay the remaining amount as adjudicate due within the stipulated period and the O.P is to issue NOC to the petitioner forthwith the repayment as per terms of the order.

ORDER

The petitioner is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,06,600/-(One lakh six thousand six hundred only) towards total repayment value , within 40 days of this order, failing @ 6% interest per annum will accrued in the same amount till complete repayment.

(ii) The O.P is also directed to issue NOC forthwith the repayment as above schedule, failing will pay on the above noted interest in the same amount till issuance and realization.

(iii) The interim order as passed is hereby vacated.

 (iv) No order as to compensation and cost.

(v) Further in completion of the repayment as ordered, the O.P is to return the keys, registration papers and other documents taken into hand during repossession if any, so also issue NOC with immediate effect without any demur.

Copy of the Order is made available to the parties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced, 23^rd June 2017.         

 

                                                                                                                        I agree  

          

                                    

   (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                            (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

    Member (W)                                                                                                              President                    

DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                   DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                   

           

 

                                                                Dictated & Corrected by

 

 

   (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                    (President)

                DCDRF, Keonjhar