Orissa

Cuttak

CC/78/2019

Ipsita Rani Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N K Sahoo & assocites

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.78/2019

Ipsita Rani Dash,

W/O:Subhransu Dash,

Plot No.1147,At:Mahanadi Vihar,

P.O:Nayabazar,P.S:Chauliaganj,

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                               ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

The Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam Finance & Investment Ltd.,

At: Sreema Construction Building,3^rd Floor,Nayachowk,

Cuttack,,P.O:Link Road,Madhupatna,

Dist:Cuttack-753010....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    15.07.2019

Date of Order:  17.08.2022

 

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

For the O.P.               :            Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had availed a Car loan from the O.P with a condition to repay it with effect from 10.7.17 to 10.6.2022 in 60 number of instalments.  The said car was registered vide Regd. No.OD-05AB-1365 having Chassis NoMAJzXXMTKzHU80530 Engine No.HU80530. The E.M.I was fixed to be paid @ Rs.12348/-.  The complainant was paying the E.M.Is but, on 5.6.19 while she was travelling from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack with her family, the henchmen of the O.P took possession of her vehicle forcibly and when she contacted the O.P, she was threatened and asked to repay the entire loan amount by 15.7.19 or else her vehicle will be subjected to auction sale.  On 18.7.19 the complainant had approached the O.P with a written representation but sine because no action was taken by the O.P, she was compelled to file this case seeking a compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.P towards her mental agony and litigation cost.  She has also prayed for interest @ 18% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of release of her vehicle and till when the entire payment of compensation is made by the O.P.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of certain documents in order to prove her case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version together with certain xerox copies of the documents including the agreement with the complainant as regards to the sanctioned loan.

            The O.P in his written version has claimed that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, the dispute inbetween the complainant and the O.P requires to be resolved by way of Arbitration Proceeding.  The office of the O.P is at Chennai where the agreement inbetween the O.P and complainant was accepted.  Of course the O.P admits to have disbursed a loan of Rs.5,19,000/- to the complainant with a condition to repay the same alongwith interest in 60 number of E.M.Is with effect from 10.7.17 to 10.6.22.  It is further alleged in the written version by the O.P that the complainant is a transporter business- woman having number of vehicles and multiple loan accounts.  She was earning profit and not her livelihood and thus she is not a “consumer” as per the definition of Consumer Protection Act,1986.  The O.P has drawn attention towards the decision in C.D.Case No.5.3.2004 in the case of Bhabani Sankar Acharya & Another Vrs. M/s. Gold Mohur Foods and Feeds Ltd. as reported in 2007 OLR(CSR) 38 and towards another case bearing C.C.No.43 of 2010 in the case of Sushant Kumar Acharya Vs. M/s. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd.  The vehicle of the complainant was repossessed when she became a defaulter and notices were issued to her prior to repossessing the vehicle.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service as stated by the O.P in his written version.  It is further averred in the written version that this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.  Ultimately, the O.P through his written version has prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed. 

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that of written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in this case in order to arrive at a definite conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issue No.i.

            When the vehicle of the complainant was taken away from her possession and  inspite of all her efforts she could not succeed in getting back her vehicle, she had preferred to file this case before this Commission.  It is the plea of the O.P that this Commission lacks jurisdiction since because the office of the O.P is at Chennai and that the dispute in between the complainant and the O.P should have been resolved by way of Arbitration Proceeding only.  Thus, it is the contention of the O.P that the case of the complainant is not maintainable here in this Commission.  The complainant has mentioned that she had availed loan for purchasing a car in order to earn her livelihood.  The contention of the O.P that she own many vehicles and multiple loan accounts: is not supported with any documentary evidence.  Thus the complainant is a consumer.  Admittedly there is no arbitration award or even initiation of arbitration proceeding in between the complainant and the O.P here in this case.  The choice of preferring redressal before this Commission is of the complainant and she is at a liberty either to prefer arbitration proceeding or to approach this Commission for her dispute.   But, admittedly the vehicle in question was repossessed in between the road of Bhubaneswar and Cuttack when the complainant was travelling in the said vehicle alongwith her family.  This contention of the complainant is not disputed by the O.P.  Thus, undoubtedly the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Cuttack and for which the complainant has rightly filed her case before this Commission and it cannot be said that this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.  The plea taken by the O.P in this regard that the office of the O.P is at Chennai does not hold good here.  Accordingly, it can be said that the case of the complainant is ofcourse maintainable.   This issue is accordingly answered.

Issue No.2.

            The plea of the complainant is that while she was paying her E.M.Is and was travelling in the vehicle in question from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack alongwith her family in that car; when the same was repossessed by the henchmen of the O.P but the O.P has stated through his written version that the complainant became a defaulter for which notices were issued to her in that regard.  The O.P has filed the agreement as executed between the complainant and the O.P, when the loan was advanced to the complainant. The account statements of the complainant are also filed showing the complainant to be a defaulter in paying the E.M.Is.  Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case it can never be said that by repossessing the car of the complainant when she became a defaulter and that when she had not responded to the notices of the O.P; it can never be said here that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  Accordingly this issue goes in favour of the O.P.

Issue No.iii.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th   day of  August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.