SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal service of ‘Notice’ for repossession of the vehicle and non-issuance of NOC are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complainant being a driver avails a finance from the Ops to the tune of Rs.2,13,476/- to purchase a TATA ACE275IDI bearing Regd. No.-OR-05AF-0593 with a monthly EMI of Rs.6460/-. Earlier the vehicle was financed to one Shankar Behera, and when Shankar Behera failed to ply the vehicle the preset complainant by availing the aforesaid finance purchased the said TATA ACE. It is stated that complainant is an innocent driver and was paying the EMI’s regularly, but the Ops illegally charged over dues, repossess charges, office stationary er. and did not avail the balance sheet of loan account No.-CUTT10305170002even after request. It is further alleged that Ops have issued 3 notices on dtd. 3/8/2014, 15/5/2015 and dtd.15/10/15 claim to pay Rs. 56,370/-, Rs.77,000/-, and Rs. 1,01,970/- respectively and complainant in the mean time has paid Rs. 87,900/- up to 26/10/2015. Ops though received all the dues, but does not issue the No objection certificate (NOC) rather threatening to reposes the vehicle. Hence the complaint before the Forum with prayer to direction may be issued to Ops not to repossess the vehicle and to issue NOC in favour of complainant and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/-.
3. Being noticed Op- finance Company appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the complainant grounds of clause of arbitration and jurisdiction, further challenges the maintainability as the complaint relates to ‘Account dispute’. Ops counter the allegations in Para wise reply submit that after execution of hypothecation Agreement bearing No. CUTT10305170002 dtd. 17/05/2013 financed amount to the tune of Rs. 1,56,000/- with total agreement value of Rs.2,13,476/- which is to paid 33 EMI’s from 20/06/2013 to 20/02/2016, further the complainant has availed two small working loans i.e, insurance which covers to the time of Rs.43,000/- which is reflected in the statement of Account of complainant. It is averred that complainant is a chronic defaulter and as on 16/02/2016 complainant is a liable to pay Rs.1,48,054/-. The copy of the loan Agreement is filed a Annexure-A and the copy of the statement of Account is field as Annexure-B. It is further stated that complainant is regular defaulter and in the circumstances No NOC can be issued and the complainant is a vexatious one filed with a ultermotive same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard, the case on merit. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant purchased a vehicle bearing No.OR-05-AF0593being financed by Op-finance Company on execution of an agreement of 17/05/2013. It is also admitted that notice for payment of arrear dues for default was issued to the complainant on different dates by Op-Company finance Company.
Op-finance raised the question of maintainability of the complainant mainly on the grounds of territorial Jurisdiction of the Forum, second the ‘Arbitration clause’ and 3rd is ‘Accounts dispute’ by citing different decisions of the Honbl’e Apex Court and Honbl’e State C.D.R. Commission, Orissa. Op- finance company on their written statement averred that as per the loan agreement (Annexure-A) which is binding on the parties on the clause of Arbitration, if any dispute arises between the parties. But no such copy of the agreement is filed by the parties though filing of loan agreement is marked as Annexure-A by Op-finance company. In the absence of the agreement no opinion can be expressed in this regard. On other points of maintainability it is observed that complainant has raised the dispute relates to ‘Accounts dispute’ and the Office Ops finance company are located not within the local Jurisdiction of the Forum. More so complainant has failed to established in the complainant petition that the cause of action or anypart there-of arises within thelocal Jurisdiction of this Forum.
That a part on factual aspect of the case in hand is presented before the Forum for its adjudication in the absence of the loan agreement, which is a vital piece of document to decide the fate of the case. Neither the Ops Company filed the same though same is marked as Annexure-A nor the complainant seeks the direction of this Forum to call for the agreement from the custody of the Op-Finance company. The payment chart present in the complainant and statement of loan Account produced before the Form reveal that complainant is not regular in payment of dues and is a defaulter and the allegations arise in the complaint, Op-Finance Company cannot be treated as deficient in service by serving Notice to realize the loan amount. Hence, the complainant is dismissed on grounds of maintainability and default in payment of dues. Accordingly, I.A. Misc case bearing No.38/15 where in an interim order was passed is here by vacated and disposed of.
According the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 12th Day of January,2017.
