Orissa

Cuttak

CC/158/2023

Mahendra Kumar Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,HDB Financial Service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Dash & associates

30 Sep 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.158/2023

Mahendra Kumar Ray,

S/o: Rabindranath Ray,

Resident of Hirapur,Ramkrishnapur,

P.S:Salepur,Dist:Cuttack.

.                                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       The Branch Manager,

HDB Financial Service Ltd.,

                    1^st floor Mahavir Complex,

Ashirbad Nagar,Bijayachandpur,

IFCO Square,Atharbanki,

                  Dist-Jagatsinghpur

 

2.       Managing Director,

HDB Financial Service Ltd.,

“Radhika” 2^nd Floor,Law Garden Road,

                  Nabarangpura,Ahamedabad,

                   Gujurat-380009

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.05.2023

Date of Order:  30.09.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Dash,Advocate.

For the O.Ps :                                    None.

         

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is the registered owner of a Tata LPK 2518 Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05AP-1155 which he had obtained by taking finance from the O.Ps vide loan agreement no.6051209 on 29.12.2018.  The complainant had obtained loan from O.P No.1 to the tune of Rs.25,35,000/- and the E.M.I was of Rs.68,325/- effective from 4.2.2019 till 4.12.2022.  During the lock down period, he failed to deposit certain E,M.Is for which he had received a letter from O.P no.1 dated 6.3.2020 mentioning therein a claim of Rs.22,13,635/-.  The complainant had approached O.P no.1 for rescheduling the loan and accordingly his loan was rescheduled on 25.3.2021 by fixing 72 number of E.M.Is  thereby making it effective upto 4.12.2024 but O.P no.1 is trying to repossess the vehicle.  He expressed his willingness to settle the loan account but in the year 2020 there was an award from the Arbitration in this context being initiated by the O.Ps.  O.P no.1 had issued notice to the complainant on 26.8.2022 asking him to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.22,13,635/-.  Thus, the complainant has come up with this case in order to restrain the O.Ps from repossessing his vehicle and to settle the dispute giving opportunity to him and also to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dated 1.7.2023.

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 him?

Point no.ii.

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

After perusing the averments as mentioned in the complaint petition and after going through the copies of several documents as available in this case record having been filed by the complainant so also after perusing the written notes of submissions as filed by the complainant, it is noticed that admittedly the complainant had obtained finance from the O.Ps vide Loan Agreement no.6051209 on 29.12.2018 and had purchased the Tata LPK 2518 Truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05AP-1155.  The complainant had obtained loan of Rs.25,35,000/- from the O.P No.1 and the E.M.I was fixed at Rs.68,325/- effective from 4.2.2019 till 4.12.2022.  During the lock down period, he failed to deposit certain E.M.Is for which the O.P no.1 vide his letter dated 6.3.2020 claimed an amount of Rs.22,13,635/- from him.  The complainant had approached O.P no.1 for rescheduling the loan and accordingly the loan was rescheduled on 25.3.2021 thereby fixing 72 number of E.M.Is which was effective upto 4.12.2024, but O.P no.1 is trying to repossess his vehicle.  Though the complainant had expressed his willingness to settle the loan account but in the year 2020 there was an award from the Arbitration in this context.  O.P no.1 had issued notice to the complainant on 26.8.2022 asking him to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.22,13,635/-.  The complainant admits that he became defaulter by not paying to the O.Ps  some of the E.M.Is during the lock down period.  Be that as it may, as per the settled principle of law, the loan agreement as executed in between the complainant and the O.Ps envisages certain terms and conditions; violation of which by any of the party will repudiate the contract/agreement and thereby entitle the other party to act and proceed as per law.  Here in the present case, as noticed the complainant by not paying the E.M.Is regularly had become a defaulter which had infact breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as executed in between himself and the O.Ps and thereby had entitled the O.Ps to repossess the financed vehicle as per law.  When there is deviation to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and when the complainant became a defaulter and had not deposited the E.M.Is even after the loan was rescheduled on 25.3.2021 by fixing 72 number of E.M.Is effective upto 4.12.2024, the claim of the complainant to direct the O.Ps not to repossess his vehicle and that he expressed  his willingness to  settle the loan account subsequently, does not hold good here in this case.  Thus, this Commission do not find any infirmity or latches in order to attract the deficiency in service against the O.Ps here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said that the complainant is a consumer and he is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Accordingly, these two points go against the complainant also.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

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 30^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                          Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                 President

                     

                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                  Member