Orissa

Cuttak

CC/163/2021

Jyoti Kumari Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S K Mohapatra & associates

20 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                              C.C.No.163/2021

Jyoti Kumari Yadav,

S/O:B.Yadav residet of

At/PO:Qr. No-EM/102,Basanti Colony,

Rourkela,Dist:Sundargarh, presently resident of

C/O:Jai Bhagwan Singh,

Res. Of At:Sai Vihar,Jagatpur,P.O: Jagatpur,

Dist:Cuttack-754021.                                                           ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

 

1.        Axis Bank represented through

It’s Branch Manager,At/PO:2^nd Floor,

Budharaja Road,Sambalpur,

Odisha-768001.

 

2.        The Branch Manager of Axis Bank,

Ramgarh Branch,At/PO:1^st Floor,

DS Complex Thana Chowk Main Road,

Ramgarh,Cantonment,Jharkhand-829122.

 

3.        Recovery Head of Axis Bank,

Sambalpur Branch,At/PO:2^nd Floor,

Budharaja Road,Sambalpur,

Odisha-768001.                                          ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.10.2021

Date of Order:  20.08.2022

 

For the complainant        :    Mr. S.K.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                      :     Mr. P.K.Rout,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                            

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased one Renault CAT B/K WID car bearing Regd. No.OD-14N-3483 in August,2017 through the O.P No.1 and the said hypothecation was to be completed on 1.1.2021.  The complainant was paying the E.M.Is punctually and had thereby cleared almost 90% of the E.M.Is.  One day when the complainant was returning with her husband and children at Rambag area, armed henchmen numbering 8 to 10 of the O.Ps had forcibly taken away the car of the complainant and thereafter the complainant went to her parental house at Rourkela by arranging one Taxi.  It is further alleged by the complainant that her daughter was assaulted by the said henchmen of the O.Ps, who also broke the Barbie doll and milk bottle of her daughter.  The complainant had lodged FIR at the nearest police station of Hatibadi on the same day i.e., on 31.8.21.  The complainant has further mentioned in her complaint petition that she requires the said car of her as because she was earning her livelihood through the same.  Thus, by filing this case, the complainant has sought for direction from this Commission to the O.Ps to release her car,  and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- alongwith interest thereon.

            She has filed Xerox copies of the documents to support her case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have jointly contested this case and have filed their written version.  According to the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  There was no deficiency in service by them.  The complainant has not approached with clean hands.  It is the contention of the O.Ps through their written version that the complainant had availed the loan amount of Rs.4,43,439/- from the O.Ps vide loan-cum-hypothecation agreement no.AUR030602531921 dt.10.7.17 for purchasing the Renault CAT B/K WID car bearing Regd. No.OD-14N-3483, with a condition to repay the loan with interest @ Rs.11,915/- per month with effect from 1.8.17 to 1.1.21 and in 42 number of instalments.  According to the O.Ps, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case of the complainant.  According to them, the matter should have been referred to Arbitration which should have been at Mumbai/Delhi/Chennai/Calcutta.  According to them, as per the loan agreement, the complainant is liable to pay additional penalty interest and charges @ 24% per annum i.e, to say, 2% per month on the overdue instalments.  The O.Ps in their written version have mentioned that in case of default payment, the Recovery Cell of the O.Ps repossesses the hypothecated vehicle after complying the due process of law and after giving repossess intimation to the concerned police station. A taxi was arranged for the complainant and her family after repossessing the vehicle in question as per law.  Thus, it is prayed by the O.Ps to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

            The O.Ps have also filed Xerox copies of the account statement reflecting therein defaults in payment by the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed by the complainant?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service by the O.Ps in this case?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Issue No.ii.

            It is the contention of the O.Ps that when as per the agreement in between the complainant and the O.Ps, the dispute if any is to be referred to the Arbitration only and that to at some stipulated places, and that this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain this case.  The complainant has mentioned that she requires the vehicle to earn her daily bread. Thus, she had purchased the vehicle in order to earn for her livelihood.  She had purchased the said vehicle through the O.Ps since because the O.Ps had advanced her loan in order to facilitate her to purchase the vehicle, which she desires.  Thus, undoubtedly the complainant is a consumer who had purchased the Renault CAT B/K WID car bearing Regd. No.OD-14N-3483 in order to earn her livelihood.  According to the C.P.Act,2019, as per the facility provided in the said Act, the complainant is at liberty to prefer redressal through the C.P. Act or to approach the Arbitrator.  Admittedly there was no referral of the dispute inbetween the complainant and the O.Ps of this case to any Arbitrator.  Thus, the complainant has rightly exercised her option by filing her complaint petition before this Commission and this Commission has ofcourse jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition of the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

            Admittedly here in this case, the complainant was a defaulter by not paying the E.M.Is which she was to pay within the due time to the O.Ps.  Her contention is that she had paid about 90% of the incurred loan but being a defaulter, she has enabled the O.Ps to repossess the vehicle as there was a breach in the terms and conditions of the agreement through which she had availed  the loan from the O.Ps.  Thus when she had not paid the E.M.Is and was a defaulter, the O.Ps through their Recovery Cell had repossessed the vehicle.  Thus, it can never be said here in this case that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues no.i & iv.

            Being a defaulter in paying the instalments as due from her to the O.Ps, when the vehicle in question was repossessed by the O.Ps, the complainant by filing this case, this case can never be said to be maintainable and accordingly she is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                              ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 20^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.            

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                

                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member