Orissa

Jajapur

CC/47/2017

Biswa Ranjan Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Shriram Finance. - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Kumar Das

30 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                             Dated the 30th day of May,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.47 of 2017

Biswal Ranjan Panda   S/O Shyamsundar Panda  

Vill. Manduka  , P.S. Balichandrapur

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                                                               ....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

 

Branch Manager, Shriram Finance ,At. Chandikhole ,P.O. Sunguda

P.S. Badachana  ,Dist.Jajpur                                                                                 ………..Opp.Party.                 

                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                            Sri M.K.Dash, Advocate .

 

For the Opp.Party                                  Sri P.K.Ray, Sri A.R.Sethy, Advocates .

                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                Date of order:   30. 05.2018.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  MEMBER  .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner.

                The facts as per complaint petition is that he   had refinanced for  a vehicle bearing No.  OR-09-F- 0902 from the O.P  amounting to Rs.3,20,000/- on dt.20.02.2010  . As per agreement the petitioner regularly deposited the Emi  in  the office of the O.P in toto Rs4,40,000/-  and the O.P forcibly insured the vehicle in his own insurance . For that the petitioner deposited the insurance premium of Rs.25,000/-  At present the vehicle business  is not running but the petitioner has  deposited  the loan amount of Rs. 5 lakh to the O.P  .Thereafter the petitioner contact the O.P  for NOC .It is ascertained that the O.P is   demanding  Rs. 2 lakh  from  the petitioner for issuance of NOC and the O.P  always threatened to the petitioner that   the vehicle will be  repossessed  by them .As a  result the petitioner is  suffering mental agony because the petitioner has approached the O.P  to give  six months to  clear  up the outstanding loan  amount but the O.P did not listen to  the same . The vehicle is only the source of income of the petitioner to  maintain his family .Accordingly  the petitioner knocked the door of this fora with the prayer to direct the O.P  to give six month time to  clear  the loan outstanding against the alleged vehicle  as well as compensate him  Rs. 30,000/ for mental agony .

                After notice the O.P appeared through the  learned advocate  and filed the  written version  taking following stand :

That the instant consumer complaint as laid is not maintainable either in law or in facts.

That it is humbly submitted that the disputes of the instant case  is clearly  account dispute   and  law in this regard is well settled  that the consumer fora lacks jurisdiction to decide the  dispute as per observation of Hon’ble  SCDRC , Odisha   in C.D.Case No.53/2004 .That it is further submitted that    no   cause of action has  arisen as  on date and  the complainant has failed to  discharge his contractual obligations to pay the installment in time and  approached the Hon’ble Forum with  unclean hands  by  disputing his  liabilities which contradicts a  lawful  agreement and hence not tenable in the eye of law.  In absence of any deficiency in  service or  cause of action the instant case is not maintainable and on this  score the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed .

                It is also submitted that the complainant  does not   possess a valid driving license to drive the financed vehicle  and therefore he can not claim that he has engaged the said  vehicle  for earning livelihood as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court  Laxmi Engineering Works   Vrs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995 AIR SC 1428.

Further  as per record the complainant approached the O.P to finance the vehicle and after detail deliberations a loan –cum- hypothecation agreement was executed between the complainant and the O.P  for disbursement of Rs.3,20,0000/- as loan amount and finance charge payable  Rs. 1,23,108/- and net agreement value comes to  Rs. 4,43,108/- is payable in 34 installments from dt. 20.09.2010 to 20.06.2013 having  Rs.16,500/- per month from 2^nd to 16 th installments Rs.9778/- per month from 17^th to 34^th installments . The 1^st installment was fixed at Rs.19604/-.   In  the consumer complainant vide para -3 it  is submitted that the complainant has to pay  Rs. 5,01,880.43/-  as on 08.09.2017  for closure of the loan account and issuance of NOC . The complainant has to pay the loan dues in terms of the loan agreement and not as per his sweet will . There is no illegality in asking the complainant to clear his loan dues as the agreement period is over since dt.20.06.2013 . On one hand  the complainant seeks six months time for clearing his loan liabilities  on the other hand he asked for NOC . The consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed for such contradiction.

There is absolutely no deficiency in service in any manner on the part of the O. P . In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the instant consumer complaint may kindly be dismissed U/S 26 of C.P.Act with cost for being devoid of merit.

                On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate  of  both the sides. After perusal of the record and documents  in details we observed that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner  availed the loan from the O.P  for the alleged vehicle .

2. it is also undisputed fact  that the petitioner subsequently is a  defaulter for repayment of EMi  in time . For that the O.P  threatened the petitioner to repossesses  the alleged vehicle for recover their defaulter amount . In the mean time it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner prayed  to give him six month time  to clear up the loan  outstanding  dues. On the other hand he asked for NOC and

claimed that the O.P  illegally demanded Rs.2 lakhs .   Thereafter during the pendency  of the disputer the petitioner failed to establish  his case by filing any appropriate documents stating that the above amount claimed by the O.P  as  outstanding  is illegal demand .  In the above  circumstances it is admitted fact that the petitioner  is a defaulter and he fails to pay the  EMi in time during the agreement period . As against the prayer of the petitioner to allow six months time to clear up the outstanding loan amount , it is our considered view that  9 months has already passed  from  the date of filing of the present dispute  and as per agreement  the  O.P  /financer can take steps for possession or to take possession of the financed vehicle as per law . Hence it is our considered view that there is  no deficiency of service on the part of the  O.P.  In view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission reported in

2011(3) CPR-113-N.C, R.P.No.1178/2006 –N.C ( Surendra Kumar agarwal Vrs.Telco Finance  & others) , 1(2009) –CPJ-502-Union Teretory ( Ramesh ku.Sharma vrs.Kotak Mahindra Primus  Ltd, , 2006-CTJ-209-S.C(M.D  Orix Auto Finance India ltd Vrs. Jagmander Singh & another ) ,

Hence ,  there is much force in the submission of the O.Ps.

O R D E R

Hence the C.C.Case  is dismissed  against the O.P  on contest . No cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of May,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.