Orissa

Jajapur

CC/23/2014

Brahmananda Behura - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeepta Kumar Samal

27 Feb 2015

ORDER

                              IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                      Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                                      2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                      3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

Dated the 27th day of February,2015.

C. C. Case No.23 of 2014

Brahmananda Behuria, S/O Lachhaman Behura

At.. Tulasipur P.O. Darkundi

P.S. Kuakhia, Dist.- Jajpur.                                                                           ……………..Complainant .                                                                                   

                        (Versus)

1. Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd,

             At/P.O. Jajpur Road, Dist.jajpur.

2. Chief Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,At.101-105,

^1st floor,B wing Shiv chambers sector-11,CBD,Navi Mumbai.

                                                                                                                               …………Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                    Sri  P.K. Samal, Advocate.

For the Opp. Party No.1                Sri J. Pattnaik, Sri R.K. Sahu , Advocates.

For the Opp.Party No.2                   None.

                                                                                                  Date of order    :    27. 02.2015.

SHRI  BIRAJA  PRASAD KAR, PRESIDENT.

                   Deficiency in service is the grievance of the complainant.

            Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant in order to eke out his livelihood ,purchased a Tata Truck bearing Regd. No. 0R-09J-2449 after availing a loan of Rs.9,17,205/- from the O.p. The complainant availed the loan from the O.P. under Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement and as per the agreement the first installment was fixed to Rs.26,005/-, the rest 20 installments was fixed to 25,000/- and the rest 24 installments was fixed for Rs.16,300/- per month. Though the complainant was paying his EMIs regularly but due to the break down of the vehicle the complainant could not pay some of the EMIs for which the O.P. is demanding the outstanding installments and delayed payment charges. The out standing installment amount is Rs.1,49,295/- as on 05.03.14. The O.P. is also threatening the complainant to repossess the hypothecated vehicle . Under the above allegations the complainant has filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P. not to violate the terms and conditions of agreement, not to repossess the vehicle, not to charge DPC till 05.09.15 and not to threatened the complainant in any manner.

                        On being noticed the O.P. appeared through his advocates and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint petition. It is pleaded in the written version that the complainant availed loan to the tune of Rs.6,40,000/- only from the STFC Ltd. under the Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement No.JJPUR0112020002 dt.03.12.2011 concerning to vehicle bearing Regn. No.0R-09J-2449(TATA Truck) and became liable for  re-payment  of Rs.9,17,205/- only in 45 monthly installments commencing from 05.01.2012 till its completion on 05.09.2015. As per repayment schedule, the 1^st installment is Rs.26,005/- only, 2^nd to 21^st installments are of Rs.25,000/- each and 22^nd to 45^th installments are of Rs.16,300/- each respectively. During subsistence of contract, the complainant availed two other loans i.e on 05.11.2012 for Rs.27,644/- only and on 16.11.2012 for Rs.15,000/- only which amount along with interest thereon i.e Rs.3,928/- only and Rs.2,424/- only was payable within the period from  05.12.2012 to 05.11.2013 (12 months and 05.01.2013 to 05.12.2013 (12 months respectively).

                        The statement of Account concerning to the aforesaid Loan Agreement reveals that as on 31.03.2014 , as against due of Rs.8,06,933.38 paise only, the complainant has paid Rs.4,74,410/- only and accordingly Rs.3,32,523.38 paise remained due towards arrear installment and over due charges .

                        The contract in question which subsists as on date stipulates that the borrower has to pay installments regularly as well as obey the terms of contract. Non payment of installments amount to default for which delay payment charges is leviable so also other consequence follows as per terms of contract. The further fact remains that there is no clause in the Agreemnt providing any kind of relaxation / concession to the borrower. Even if demand notice has been issued, but no threat has been given to the complainant to repossess the asset and that by notice of demand opportunity was provided to the borrower, which can not be termed as illegal. The O.Ps. financer have never violated the terms of agreement as has been alleged by the complainant and that no such intention is there to harass the complainant. The further fact remains that the allegation made by the complainant against the O.P-financer is not based on any convincing materials and not a single scrap of paper has been filed by the complainant in support of his allegations. Therefore, correctness thereof has to be established by the complainant. The complainant bears no merit for consideration and that the relief sought for should not be granted in favour of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is liable to be dismissed  / rejected.           

On the date of hearing we heard arguments from both sides. Perused the record,  written argument and documents available on record.

            The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he does not dispute the loan amount and rapyment schedule. But due to the break down of the vehicle the complainant could not pay some EMIs for which the O.P. is demanding the arrear dues, delayed payment charges and threating to repossess the vehicle which is illegal.

            On the other hand the learned counsel for the O.P. argued that they have never violated the terms of the agreement and the complainant is liable to pay the arrear dues as per the agreement. They have also never threatened to repossess the vehicle. Accordingly the consumer complaint merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

                        Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we would like to dispose of the case with the following direction.

            “ Both the parties ( the complainant and O.P.)  are directed not to violate the terms and conditions of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement.

                                                                        O R D E R

                        In the net result the case is disposed of on the aforesaid directions.           

       This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of February ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.                                                                                                                                                                    

(Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                                 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar)

          Member.                                                                                          President.

                                                                                        Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

(Miss Smita Ray)                                                                                        ( Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )

     Member.                                                                                              President.