Orissa

Cuttak

CC/184/2022

Mani Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

U N Sahoo & associates

01 May 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.184/2022

 

Mani Malik,

W/o: Sri Prafulla Kumar Malik &

D/o: Akshya Malik,

Resident of Vill:KulaganIshalo,

                    PO-Asureswar,PS-Nischintakoili,

                     Dist:Cuttack,Odisha                                                         ...Complainant

 

          Vrs.

 

1. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd.,

Sreema Construction Building,Naya Chowk,

                    Madhupatana,Cuttack-753010,Odisha

Represented through its Branch Manager.

 

2.        M.D.,Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd.,

Corporate Office: “Dare House”,1^st Floor,

No.2 N.S.C Bose Road,Chennai-600001(Tamilnadu).                               ….Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    14.09.2022

Date of Order:  01.05.2024

For the complainant:             Mr. U.N.Sahoo,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :                  None.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that in order to earn her livelihood, she had purchased a second-hand Bolero vehicle after refinancing it through the O.P Company.  The O.P no.1 had informed the complainant that a sum of Rs.3,97775/- was financed to her so as to enable her to purchase the Bolero vehicle and it was agreed to repay the loan alongwith interest @ Rs.11,754/- per month in 57 number of monthly instalments with effect from 10.2.2020 till 10.10.2024.  The vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant by the R.T.O,Cuttack and the Registration number was OD-05Q-7623.  It is further alleged by the complainant that only an amount of Rs.3,31,109/- was released in her favour on 23.1.2020 which was deposited in her Savings Bank Account with the HDFC Bank.  It is alleged by the complainant that she is illiterate and does not know to read and write English language whereas the contents of the loan agreement were made in English language which were neither read over nor explained to her.  During the pandemic period, there was difficulty in maintaining her livelihood by earning money, still the complainant had borrowed money and had tried to clear up the EMIs but to her surprise, she received a demand notice dated 14.6.2021 from the O.P company wherein it was mentioned that an outstanding EMI of Rs.22,209/- was lying to be paid by her.  Though the O.P company had actually released a sum of Rs.3,31,109/- in her favour but they had shown an excess payment to her of Rs.3,97,775/- and thereby an excess amount of Rs.66,666/- was shown to have been released in her favourwhich was actually not paid.  When she came to know that the O.P Company is trying to repossess her vehicle, she wanted her accounts statement but she was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.295/- for getting the statement of accounts.  The O.Ps through their agent had tried to seize the vehicle of the complainant and repossess it at Salipur Bazar area but the driver of the complainant had managed to escape from the spot.  The complainant has thus come up with this case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.Ps to reschedule and refix the EMI dues and to adjust the excess amount. She has also prayed for a direction to the O.Psin order to pay her a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for her mental agony and harassment.  She has further prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Together with her complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove her case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dated 28.11.2023.  However, The O.Ps have filed their evidence affidavit  and their written notes of submission in this case.

          The complainant has also filed his evidence affidavit and written notes of submission, which when perused appears to be the reiteration of the contents of the complaint petition as filed earlier.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

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

 

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, for the sake of convenience, point no.ii is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, the evidence affidavit of the complainant and written notes of submission as filed from both sides, the evidence affidavit filed on behalf of the O.Ps and the available copies of documents herein this case, it is noticed that in order to purchase a second-hand Bolero vehicle, the complainant had obtained finance from the O.Ps and had thereby entered into a Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement with them wherein it was agreed to clear the loan with  interest in 57 number of EMIs @Rs.11,754/- with effect from 10.2.2020 upto 10.10.2024.  It is the allegation made by the complainant that she was only released an amount of Rs.3,31,109/- but the O.Ps have made her understand that they had released a sum of Rs.3,97,775/- in her favour which, according to her is untrue.  The complainant has urged through her complaint petition that she does not know to read and write English whereas the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement was written in English whose contents were neither read-over nor explained to her but she was rather forced to sign on those.  Be that as it may, admittedly, the complainant has entered into a Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement and she has nowhere protested that she is ignorant about the contents of the said Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement while signing on the said document.  Moreso, the complainant has filed her evidence affidavit here in this case and while perusing the same, it is noticed that the same is typed in English language but there is no endorsement to the effect that the contents of the said evidence affidavit which are all in English were read over and explained to the complainant and thereafter she has signed on her such evidence affidavit.  The O.Ps while advancing argument in this case had drawn attention of this Commission towards the copies of documents wherein it is reflected that the complainant was sanctioned and released a sum of Rs.3,97,775/- and it was to be repaid by her alongwith interest @ 17.51%.  The complainant has signed all the documents to that effect but had nowhere mentioned that she was unaware of the contents therein.  The learned counsel for the O.Ps had also drawn attention towards the copies of loan sanctioning agreement wherein the insurance for 1 & ½ a year charge is reflected together with the documentation charge, service charge were all reflected and the same when added in toto was of Rs.66,666/- which signifies about the balance sanctioned amount as questioned by the complainant.  The complainant has no say about the same.  Thus, keeping such facts and circumstances of the case in mind after analysing the evidence as available here in this case, this Commission comes to a conclusion that there is absolutely no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this point goes against the complainant.

 

Points no.I& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

The case is dismissed exparte 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 1^stday of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. 

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                        President

 

                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member