DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No.54 of 2021.
Date of hearing : 18.06.2024.
Date of order : 02.07.2024.
Dated the 2nd day of July 2024.
Pradeep Jena, S/o:- Bidyadhar Jena,
Vill:-Deopada, Po:- Manjuri Road,
P.S:- Bhandaripokhari, Dist:- Bhadrak,
. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Branch Manager,
Shriram Transport
Finance Company Limited, Bhadrak Branch,
At:- 2nd Floor, Chhapulia-Bypass, Bhadrak
(Opposite of Vishal Market Complex)
P.S:- Bhadrak (T), Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100.
2. Manager of Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Regd. Office:- 14 A, South Phase, Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai, Pin-600032. . . . . Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Purnalata Sahoo, Advocate & Associate,
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Sri Prabir Ku. Ray, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant is a simple & innocent educated schedule caste person. For his self-employment & to maintain his livelihood he had purchased a SONALIKA D1-35 of Model-2016 vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-22F-2958. The vehicle has been purchased through the finance assistance of O.Ps. The O.Ps financed a loan of Rs.4,50,000/- & told to repay the said loan amount in 52 months by 52 EMIs. The complainant alleges that these O.Ps had taken signatures in some blank printed forms & not supplied the copy of loan agreement for which the complainant remained in dark about the agreement & actual EMIs. The complainant has paid the EMIs as per demand of the agent of OPs & had paid Rs.3,92,314/- as on 02.07.2019 & due to illness & after the lockdown of Covid-19, the complainant could not pay the rest amount of Rs.2,46,681/-. The O.Ps served a letter dtd.08.04.2021 wherein the O.Ps have demanded an amount of Rs.6,26,549.45 as dues on the complainant. The O.Ps had imposed illegal amount of Rs.3,79,868- towards delay payment & interest and over dues in between Covid-19 by violating of the order of Government. The O.Ps had threatened the complainant to take possession of the vehicle, if the amount asked is not paid by the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the letter. The imposition of illegal demand of money is unfair trade practice & non-supplied of agreement paper by the O.Ps is also unfair trade practice & deficiency of service. In Covid-19 situation the complainant could not ply the vehicle & could not earn money to pay the installments. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. 1) Letter dated 08.04.2021 given by O.Ps. & 2) Registration Certificate.
The O.Ps submit that, the complainant has availed a loan from the O.Ps vide Loan Agreement No.BHDRKO606020001, dtd.02.06.2016 of Rs.4,50,000/- & interest therein of Rs.2,20,109/- and net agreement value of Rs.6,70,109/- which is payable in 53 installments starting from 05.07.2016 to 05.05.2021. The complainant has also availed 7 WCL loans, the details which are available in the statement of account of the complainant’s loan account. The allegation regarding obtaining the signature in blank printed forms is not correct. The complainant has executed the loan agreement, but pretending as if he is too innocent to know about the execution of the loan agreement by putting his signatures on the loan documents. The copy of the loan agreement was immediately supplied to the borrower after its execution. But the complainant makes the allegation regarding non-supplying the loan agreement after 5 years which is neither believable nor tenable in the eyes of law as it is desperately barred by limitation. The account statement of the complainant’s loan account reveals that he is liable to pay Rs.7,90,140/- as on dtd.24.12.2021. The complainant cannot utilize the Covid-19 situation in his advantage for indefinite period not to pay the installment dues in violation of the terms & conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for.
As none of the parties appeared during two consecutive dates, the complaint is taken up for disposal on merit as available on case record. As the case record and documents reveal, the complainant has indeed taken financial assistance from the OPs. The complainant raises the issue of non-supply of copy of loan agreement after elapse of 5 years which is a little hard to believe. The tenure of the loan is already over. It is also uncertain from the evidence available as to whether the vehicle has been repossessed by these OPs. The complainant has failed to prove neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
