SRI G.K. RATH, PRESIDENT … The substance of case is that, the complainant for his livelihood doing business and for his requirement had intended to purchase a vehicle Renault Duster for Rs.11,00,000/-, hence approached the OP.no.1 to finance the vehicle, to which the OP.s sanctioned Rs.7,50,000/- which shall be repaid along with interest Rs.2,49,000/- in 46 E.M.I.s of Rs.21,715/- per month including flat interest from Dt.19.06.2014 to 10.03.2018. The complainant deposited the margin money of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- for insurance premium and registration cost of the said vehicle. The complainant contends that during sanction of loan he signed a book with dotted lines unfilled, some blank forms, white papers and handover some signed blank cheques of his saving/current account no.3486624887, the signed book, papers are agreement containing large number of pages and was impossible to read and understood within a short period on the part complainant but finding no other option under compelling situation had signed on the blank papers. He further contends that the OP.s did not handover him the copies which he had signed. However the vehicle was registered with the R.T.A.Nabarangpur vide Regd.no.OD 24-B-0099 in the name of complainant. The complainant submits that against the agreed value of Rs.999000/- i.e. (principal Rs.7,50,000/- + Rs.2,49,000/- as interest), the complainant has already been paid Rs.6,79,892/- to the OP.1 but when he went undergone medical treatment from the period dt.22.04.2015 to 30.03.2016 in different months he could not able to deposit the EMI in time for which he has already paid cheque return charges. The complainant further submits that on dt.23.05.17 when he had gone Umerkote, some hired musclemen of OP.1 repossessed the vehicle from the house of complainant said that the vehicle repossessed by the company for default in payment. Later Knowing the fact the complainant approached the OP.1 requesting for negotiation but the OP.1 demanded with heavy outstanding arbitrarily. On dt.19.07.17 the complainant received a letter dt.13.06.17 from OP demanding to repay the loan amount along with interest to be paid within 7 days or else, the OP would dispose the vehicle on auction. He further submits that seizure of vehicle is illegal in the circumstances and against the guidelines of R.B.I. The OP. Company being a NBFC should follow the rules of RBI and without charging DPC has overruled the guidelines of RBI. Hence due to the over act of OP.s the complainant suffers mentally and financially which cannot be evaluated in terms of money. So he takes shelter of this forum and prayed to direct the OP.s to restore the vehicle, inter alia Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The counsel for OP.s has filed his counter to contend that, the complainant is not a consumer and the present case is not maintainable. That on request of complainant the OP.s provided a load to the tune of 7,50,000/- and the agreement value including interest to be repaid by the complainant was Rs.9,99,000/- the same was executed on 19.06.14 bearing loan agreement No.3202823. The complainant agreed to repay the same in 46 EMIs, the first installment being Rs.21,825/- and the rest 45 of Rs.21715/- starting from 19.6.14 ending on 10.3.18. But the complainant was failure to make payment as per agreement and became default, that on dt.23.05.17 the complainant supposed to pay 36 installments whereas the complainant has paid only 27 installments and was default of Rs.1,90,835/- i.e. 09 EMIs in addition to that Rs.1,09,735/- as late payment charges, Rs.4001/- as cheque bounce charges in total Rs.2,17,150/- was due and payable on the part of complainant. Hence after several reminders and personal visit the complainant did not pay the outstanding, hence the OP.s repossessed the vehicle legally as per provisions of the agreement. So he contends that there is no deficiency in service, hence the case is liable to dismiss with cost.
3. The complainant has filed copy of some relevant papers along with medical documents and affidavit in support of his claims. The counsel for OP.s filed copy of loan agreement and contends the case without filing any affidavit. Case heard from both the parties and perused the record.
4. It reveals from the case that, the complainant being unemployed educated doing business for his livelihood hence procured the so called vehicle with a loan of Rs.7,50,000/-agreed to pay interest of Rs.249000/- to be accumulated Rs.999000/- to deposit within dt.19.6.14 to 10.3.18 as EMIs. The contention of complainant is that he has already deposited Rs.6,79,892/- out of the total outstanding but when he was undergone medical treatment, the OP.s forcibly repossessed the vehicle illegally through their hired musclemen from his house. The complainant contends that he received a letter of OP.1 on dt.19.7.17 demanding to repay the loan amount along with interest within 7 days or else the OP.s would dispose the vehicle on auction. He further submits that the OP.s demanded more than the agreed value hence is illegal and arbitrary.
5. We have carefully gone through the complaint, the counter by OP.s and submission of parties including documents submitted by them and restricted our adjudication to the following points-
A. Is the complainant a consumer against the OP.s ?
B. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.s in regard to the present transaction?
C. Is there any remedy available to the parties in the lis ?
6. Primarily, the agreement executed between parties to the lis is in nature of loan agreement, with hypothecation of vehicle in question. The complainant submits that, he being unemployed for his self employment and to earn livelihood, he had bought the vehicle to expand his earnings. Hence he approached the OP.1 and executed an agreement on 19.6.2014 with voluminous agreement papers to which the complainant hardly had any time to go through but signed all blank within a short period. The OP.s neither have availed him the copy of agreement he singed or the papers. The vehicle bearing regd.no.OD-24-B-0099 against which the loan was advanced is registered in his name. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the OP.s is a NBFC Company, selling loans for a valuable consideration i.e. interest. Sec.2(O) of the act defines ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential uses and includes, but not limited to the provisions of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, procuring…… Hence, the OP.s are NBFC Company availing of financing services to their customers and the present complainant availing that service for a valuable consideration i.e. interest, hence the complainant is a consumer under the Act.
7. The complainant further submits that, the OP is an NBFC company which sells loans to its perspective customers. It has, apart from opening the branches as opened in various parts of Odisha, especially one at Umerkote, dist of Nabarangpur.
8. Pursuing all the evidences produced by the OP.s and complainant, along with their submissions, this forum is brushed off of any doubts to opine that the cause of action, arose at Nabarangpur district, and agreements are all executed at the O/o OP.1, the hypothecated vehicle also registered with the R.T.A. Nabarangpur, hence all the facts consolidated throws the burden of jurisdiction under this forum to adjudicate the complaint of its merit, and this forum feels to repudiate from the burden would inflict a great injustice unto the complainant.
9. The OP.s representing the company is an NBFC company and all NBFC companies so registered, are guided by the rules and guidelines prescribe by the Reserve Bank of India, and such guidelines to adequate the credit system of the country.
The term deficiency defined under Sec.2 (1) (g) of the C.P.Act 1986, which reads as followed. 2(1)(g) ‘deficiency means any fault ‘in perfect shortcomings or inadequacy in quality, nature, and manner or performance which is required to be intentional by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
10. The counsel of OP.s have failed to adduce affidavits of OP.s, any evidences or submissions to defense the said allegations
11. Hence, this forum, on perusal of all the evidences as discussed above, of the view that, the OP.s has acted, arbitrarily, capriciously, malfeasantly to the prejudice of the interest and rights of the complainant, and there is serious deficiency in services committed by the OP.s for which they are liable to be impounded with heavy compensation. However, they have advanced a loan of Rs.999000/- with interest to which the complainant admits, and have recovered Rs.679,892/- and repossessed the vehicle with hired musclemen and auctioned the same while the complainant was undergone medical treatment, hence is illegal, highhanded.
As thus the complaint is allowed against the OP.s.
O R D E R
i. The OP.s are here by directed to pay the total deposited amount of complainant i.e. Rs.6,79,892/- against the vehicle in question immediately, inter alia to pay Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand) as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total amount shall bear 12% interest per annum till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on 30th day of Oct' 2017.
sd/- sd/- sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
(Sri R.S.Nayak) (Smt M.Padhi) (Sri G.K.Rath)
