DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 23rd day of April, 2020
C.D Case No. 06 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Asim Keshari Jena
S/o Sri Pravakar Jena
Vill: Rambhila,
Po: Bhadrak,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Branch Manager,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Mahindra Finance
At: R.C Behera Mansion, Salandi Bypass,
Po/Dist: Bhadrak, Pin- 756100
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
Mahindra Finance Registered Office,
Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder,
Mumbai- 400001
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri S. P. Mohanty, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps: Sri B. K. Tripathy, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 19.06.2019
Date of order: 23.04.2020
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the case as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant purchased a TATA Ace HT vehicle on 14.04.2014 with the credit support of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. The complainant applied to O.Ps for sanction of Rs 3,85,522/- which was considered by the O.Ps and after payment of required margin money of Rs 60,000/- O.Ps sanctioned the residual amount which was to be repaid in 46 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) @ Rs 10,420/- each. The total amount including interest cost arrives at Rs 4,79,000/- was to be paid by the complainant starting from 10th day of May 2014. Accordingly the complainant executed all required documents to avail such loan from the O.Ps. In this manner the complainant went on repaying the installment amount on the scheduled dates as per repayment schedule and after payment of 26 installments, the O.Ps forcibly repossessed the said vehicle on 31.01.2017 from driver while the vehicle was on road. The complainant claims to have paid more than Rs 3.50 lakhs as on the date of repossession of vehicle and even the complainant had paid Rs 10,420/- on 12.12.2016 to avoid defalcation. After repossession of the vehicle the complainant requested OP No. 1 to release the vehicle on payment of required default amount which was disagreed by the O.Ps and demanded payment of RS 3,00,000/- for release on vehicle which was illegal and unfair in eyes of law. As the complainant was unable to arrange such a big amount, remained silent for some time and engaged himself for arrangement of the amount to square up the loan account. But all on a sudden in the month of November 2017, the complainant received intimation from O.Ps about sale of seized vehicle for an amount of Rs 1,56,700/- which is much less than the actual market price and demanded for payment of Rs 89,571/- to the full satisfaction of the O.Ps. The above act of O.Ps not to respond the complainant and refusal to receive the default amount for release of the vehicle speaks of ulterior motive and amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The O.Ps objected the contents of the complaint and contested the case. At the outset, the O.Ps have raised the question of maintainability as the consumer has not whispered a single word in the entire petition about the deficiency of service and raised the question of the complainant on the point of status as a consumer. The O.Ps have entirely denied the contentions of the complaint as all the allegations made in the complaint are fake and fabricated. It is also submitted by the O.Ps that the claim of the complainant to have paid Rs 3.50 lakhs to the credit of his loan account is absolutely false which is substantiated by the O.Ps with evidence. It is also stated by the O.Ps that the complainant has actually repaid an amount of Rs 2,72,920/- thereby causing default of Rs 72,940/- as on 31.01.2017 that is the date of repossession of the vehicle and whatever actions have been initiated by the O.Ps in the post repossession period are in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed between the parties and the complainant has grossly violated the terms of the agreement. In view of above the complaint filed by the complainant does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.
Gone through the complaint of the complainant, written version filed by the O.Ps, perused materials on record and observed as follows.
1. The complainant has claimed to have paid Rs 3,50,000/- as on the date of repossession of the vehicle which is strongly objected by the O.Ps. The complainant has submitted 23 Nos. of repayment receipts before the Forum to substantiate his claim. The entire amount paid by the complainant as per receipts submitted is calculated Rs 2,44,249/- that proves the allegation of complainant is completely false. The loan account statement submitted by the O.Ps shows that the complainant has paid Rs 2,72,920/- as on the date of repossession of the vehicle which includes the loan amount and other late payment charges. This clearly proves that the allegation made by the complainant is not sustainable.
2. In course of hearing the O.Ps submitted that the complainant has not made any payment on the due dates and therefore violated the terms of the agreement executed and the claim of the complainant as to have made repayments on due dates in every month are false and not prove.
3. It is reflected in the account statement adduced by the O.Ps as evidence that as on the date of repossession of the vehicle, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs 2,72,920/- causing default/overdue of Rs 72,940/- and as such the complainant has grossly violated the terms of the loan agreement and also the complainant failed to prove his claim.
4. It is also a fact that there is an outstanding of Rs 89,571/- as on 23.01.2018 that is the date of filing accounts statement in the loan account of the complainant maintained with OP No. 1 which is required to be paid by the complainant for liquidating the loan account but the complainant did not care for repayment of the same. As such, actions taken by O.Ps are felt justified.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is crystal that the complainant has failed to prove his claim and the O.Ps have not caused any deficiency of service and not resorted to any unfair trade practice.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost and compensation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 23rd April, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
