Presented by Smt. A. Behera, Member .
Facts,
Father of the Complainant had purchased an Eicher Tractor bearing Engine No.512429857785 and Chassis No. 912410272447 being financed by Opposite Party No.1(one). Agreement and other necessary formalities were completed by both the parties. Complainant was paying the loan installments regularly but when his father was detected with cancer and admitted for treatment at Bangalore and on crop failure Complainant was not able to repay the installments.
But with out following due procedure Opposite Parties repossessed the financed vehicle and keeping the same for one day at lenda kept the tractor at Barahgada Godown of the Bank. The tractor was repossessed on Dt.06/02/2013. Later Complainant found the vehicle kept near by RTO Bargarh office and also found some parts missing and some replaced.
Complainant alleges arbitrary, illegal and malafide action deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties and claims returning of the vehicle and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only as compensation.
Complainant also filed an interim petition to get temporary injunction under the provision of 13(3) (B) of C.P. Act 1986 which was got disposed on Dt.19/03/2013 after a hearing and assessment of the case.
Complainant relied on (1) The letter of information to the Branch Manager, ADB, Bargarh (2) Xerox copies of 3 pages of pass book, S.B.I., Bargarh in the name of Mahadeva Sahu, (3) One copy of form C-Receipt of Tax (not legible) (4) 3 Nos of MV money receipt in one sheet to establish their case.
Interim order issued on dated 19/03/2013 directing the Opposite Parties not to auction the vehicle in issue in this Complaint till their appearance Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared and filed their version on Dt. 23/07/2013 denying the charges against them and wrote their contention in their version.
Opposite Party No.1(one) filed and relied on the following documents to prove their case. Xerox copies of:-
Letter of arrangement.
Hypothecation agreement.
Post sanction inspection report Dt. 20/03/2012.
Pencil impression of chassis No of the vehicle.
Post sanction inspection report Dt.05/05/2012.
Notice Dt.05/05/2012.
Commitment letter of payment by the borrower Dt. 05/05/2012.
Special OTS for tractor loan.
Notice of seizer Dt. 28/01/13, Dt.30/08/2012.
Statement of account.
Complainant stopped appearances for some time and also did not complied with
the order of the forum Dt. 09/07/2014 hence hearing was done merit on Dt. 21/07/2014.
Heard the matter, gone through the record and documents filed by either parties and on detailed analysis and due application of mind following facts appeared.
The Tractor finance was in the name of the father of the Complainant admitted fact.
The Tractor financed was done on Dt.01/09/2006 full filling all the requirements and formalities duly maintained.
Complainant said that his father was paying the loan installments regularly where as the pass book copies filed by the Complainant does not shows any repayment neither any other documentary proof of filing of the installments has been done by the Complainant.
Complainant submitted that his father died out of cancer and was treated as Banglore and also because of crop failure he was not able to repay the out standing loan and got defaulted however on careful perusal of the case record it is evident that no documentary evidence are filed to proof the above contention of the Complainant hence not accepted by the forum.
Opposite Party No.1(one) contended that they have followed the procedure related to the finance which can be ascertained by the documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one). So as to inspection to the Complainant's house, seizer notice duly acknowledged by the Complainant.
The death of the borrower has happened in the year 2011 after almost five years of the finance of the tractor and no sign of repayment is presented before this forum which is irregular and improper on the part of the Complainant himself.
From the inspection report filed by the Opposite Party No.1(one) it is also evident that the vehicle was not register so long though was in use another irregularity on the side of the Complainant.
The inspection reports conducted on two dates were duly served by person and has been acknowledged by the son, grandson and his granddaughter-in-law of the borrower Mahadev Sahu.
As per their documents filed by Opposite Party No.1(one) OTS facility was also provided to the Complainant so as to help him close the loan at once for his own interests.
Seizure notice has been served by the OppositeParty No.1(one)on Dt. 28/01/2013 duly signed by the son of the borrower however this notice is signed in oriya by Loknath Sahu where as all other agreements and deed were signed in English by this Loknath Sahu but in the event of non challenge this has no impact. Again seizure notice shows that till the notice served the sum calculated amounts to a tune of Rs.5,51,894/-(Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand eight hundred ninety four)only from Rs.2,39,000/-(Rupees two lakh thirty nine thousand)only because of non payment of interest which increased at the instance of each default. Point to be noted here is that while finance was been done it was agreed that half yearly installment are set at Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only on each and if those were paid sincerity the loan could have been completed majority with out this kind of result.
The seizure notice dated 30/05/2012 differ with the other seizer notice where in the amount demanded was in Rs. 3,19,185/-(Rupees three lakh nineteen thousand one hundred eighty five)only with out saying the interest.
Complainant did not took the benifit of OTS facility offered to him by the bank Opposite Party No.1(one).
From all the above discussion held above forum opines that no negligence lies on the part of the Opposite Parties while dealing with the loan amount who accorded sufficient time and facilities to the borrower to clear the loan. But however bank started this action very lately becoming silent for more than five years which raised the total recovery amount a large sum which has certainly put the Complainant in a little hurdle.
On the facts of all the above discussion and analigsis if facts and docuemnts Forum Order as the following.
The Complainant is devoid of any merit hence dismissed.
No Cost to parties.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Smt. Anjali Behera ) ( Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r.
