Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/72/2016

Surendra Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager (Tata Motors Finance Ltd.) - Opp.Party(s)

Sri C.K. Mohanty

27 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 72/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Surendra Naik,

S/O- Gangadhar Naik

R/O-Govindtola, Po/PS-Dhanupali

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                        ……..          …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

Branch Manager, TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,

Bajaji Towers, G.M. College  Road,

Sambalpur-768001, Odisha                                           ……..          ….….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. C.K.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.                      :-         Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING :04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 27.07.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The facts of the complainant are that the Complainant has taken a loan from O.P to purchased one Indica Vista for personal use vides Registration No. OD-15-1380. The loan amount was Rs, 5, 00,412/- and the EMI was settled at Rs. 10,645/-. The payment of EMI commencing from 15.10.2012 to 15.08.2016. The Complainant has paid as per calculation and bank details Rs. 4, 69,294.84/- which was received by the O.P till 20.08.2016. He failed to pay Rs. 31,117.16/- only three installments as he run into some financial difficulties, for which reason the Complainant withheld the said amount. The Complainant used to pay the installment of the vehicle loan regularly and has already paid about 44 installments out of total 47 installments. The Complainant has already paid Rs. 4, 69,294/- towards installments and Rs. 1,35,738/- towards down payment a total of Rs. 6,05,035/-has already been paid by the Complainant to the O.P but for a smaller amount, the O.P has illegally repossessed the vehicle arbitrarily. According to the Complainant, the O.P forcibly repossessed the vehicle at Govindtola from driver on 25.08.2016. The driver was handed over inventory list and the Complainant was informed by the driver that if he pays Rs. 31,117.16/- towards the three unpaid installments, then the vehicles will be released. Though the Complainant was willing to pay the balance amount, still the O.P did not receive the amount nor released the vehicle. According to the Complainant the vehicle was repossessed without giving any notice to the Complainant and was seized with the help of goondas employed by the O.P forcefully. The Complainant apprehends that unless the O.P is ordered to release the above mentioned car there is every chance that the O.P may cause damage to the car. The Complainant also filed a petition U/S. 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act dtd 14^th September 2016 in which he submitted that due to sudden and illegal taking over possession of the vehicle at Govindtola by the OP under threat by using force, the Complainant has filed the complaint petition along with a petition U/S. 13 (3)(b) of Consumer Protection Act for release of the vehicle. The Hon’ble Forum after hearing the petition passed order on dt. 07.09.2016 that “we are forced to form an opinion that OP has forcibly repossessed the vehicle and this is an illegal act. They have not followed the procedures and the rule of law as dictated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various judgements. Hence the Hon’ble Forum directed the Complainant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 31, 117.16 immediately to the OP and also the OP at the same time is directed to receive the said amount and release the car forthwith on the receipt of the above amount from the Complainant”. After receiving the extract of the order the Complainant himself went to the office of the OP, met the Branch Manager, produced the copy of the order and deposited a sum of Rs. 31,116.16 but he refused to receive the amount and release the vehicle. The Complainant politely requested him to respect the order of the Forum but he remained adamant. He also refused to grant any receipt acknowledging the petition of the Complainant and hence the Complainant returned back. The OP did not obey the order of the Hon’ble Forum did not accent the vehicle though they have received the notice and order of this Forum. The Complainant has prayed for action taken against the OP U/S 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act for the violation of the order of the Hon’ble Forum and in the event of no release of the vehicle.
2. The written version of the O.Ps is that the Complainant approached the OP for availing loan to Finance a Indica Vista LS and approached the opposite finance company for sanction of Rs. 3, 15,000/- to which the OP agreed. Accordingly both the parties executed the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement vide Contract No. 5001036763 and said loan was disbursed. As per the explicit terms and conditions of the said agreement the Complainant had agreed to liquidate the entire loan amount of the vehicle in total 47 monthly EMIs starting from 15.10.2012 and thereby ending on 15.08.2016 of which the 1^st EMI is of Rs. 10,742/- and from 2^nd to 47^th EMI was of Rs. 10,645/- as per the repayment schedule. That any delay or default in making payment of any such installments would attract over due and such other charges as more fully set out there under and the OP Company will be entitled to take the possession of the said vehicle as per right and remedies of the Agreement. As per the terms and conditions contained in the said agreements the said vehicle is hypothecated to the OP finance company as security for due repayment of the loan. Such security was enforceable by the OP on the occurrence of any of the events or violation of the terms and conditions as contemplated in the said agreement. The Complaint filed by the Complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer dispute’ under the Consumer Protection Act as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by the OP nor any deficiency in service being established against the OP. The Complainant has deposited post dated cheques with this OP towards the repayment of the loan installments and the cheques have been regularly dishonored due to insufficient funds. Continuous default of installment dues the OP has approached the said Complainant through letters and personal contracts to pay the same but the Complainant is deliberately and intentionally not clearing up the said dues and has retained the said vehicle under his custody without any reasonable excuse. As a result the OP Finance Company was constrained and compelled to take the lawful possession of the said vehicle after following the due procedure of Law as per the terms and conditions in the agreements. The Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) of the C.P Act and the OP has never rendered any such service constituting and fulfilling the ingredients of 2(1)(g) and 2(1)® of the CP Act.
3. The Complainant has taken a loan from O.P to purchase one Indica Vista for personal use vides Registration No. OD-15-1380. The loan amount was Rs, 5, 00,412/- and the EMI was settled at Rs. 10,645/-. So the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P under the Provision of Consumer Protection Act. The Complainant has paid about 44 installments out of total 47 installments. The Complainant has already paid Rs.4, 69,294/- towards installments and Rs. 1, 35,738/- towards down payment a total of Rs. 6, 05,035/-has already been paid by the Complainant to the O.P but for a smaller amount, the O.P has illegally repossessed the vehicle arbitrarily without following the process of law. As per direction given by the Hon’ble forum, the Complainant was willing to pay the balance amount, but the O.P did not receive the amount nor released the vehicle.

Hence the O.Ps are directed to release the seized vehicle bearing No. OD-15-1380 in good condition after receiving the rest amount of Rs. 31,117.16 without receiving penal interest from the Complainant and to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards deficiency in service to the Complainant. Further as per the Order dtd. 16.09.2016, the O.P has disobeyed the Order dtd. 07.09.2016 of the Forum. So in continuance of the previous Order dtd. 07.09.2016, the O.P is further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant to-wards compensation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 27^th day of July, 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.