PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 77/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

MD Mumtaj

S/O- MD Isahak,

R/O-Pensionpara, Near Paltan Masjid, Ps-Dhanupali

PO/Dist-Sambalpur-768001.                               ...………..Complainant

Versus

Branch Manager,

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

PO/PS-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004.                                                         …………...Opp.Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Md. A. Ali, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :-       Ex-parte

Date of Filing:14.10.2023,  Date of Hearing :18.07.2023  Date of Judgement : 28.08.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant has availed finance from the OP for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on dtd. 28.02.2019 for a tenure of 50 months to maintain livelihood being self-employed. The Complainant has purchased the said vehicle and paid 34 installments of Rs. 6,65,000/- to the OP towards repayment of aforesaid loan as on date and due to ill health , the Complainant failed to pay few installment and also due to lockdown and Covid 19 situation RBI issued a guideline of moratorium of 6 month from April 2020 to September 2020. After completion of moratorium from October 2020 to December 2020, the vehicle is not properly work due to the effect of Covid. For that reason the Complainant was not able to deposit some EMIs which was under moratorium period. The OP has not supplied the account statement to the Complainant, so the Complainant could not able to know his actual due and also not supply the copy of the agreement. The OP threatening to forcibly seize the aforesaid vehicle of the Complainant without giving any notice to the Complainant. The OP has not only committed act of deficiency of service, disobeyed the guidelines of RBI moratorium in Covid 19 pandemic situation and perpetrated unfair trade practice but also committed criminal acts by giving threatening to seize the vehicle.
2. The OP is set exparte.
3. From the above pleading it is found that the Complainant could not able to pay the required EMIs in time and thereby became a chronic defaulter as a result huge outstanding amount of default of such EMIs remained unpaid. Further the Complainant has not given any evidence that he has purchased the vehicle for his unemployment and he himself has engaged in the said vehicle for his livelihood. However both the parties are directed to settle the matter by one time mutual settlement among themselves and further the OP is directed to supply the account statement and the copy of the agreement to the Complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. With this observation the case is dismissed.  

                 Order pronounced in the open Court today on 28^th day of Aug, 2023.

                 Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.