Orissa

Cuttak

CC/116/2017

Niranjan Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Indusind Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.116/2017

            Niranjan Nayak,

           C/O:Pravakar Nayak,

           At:Bhatapada,Salipur,Dist:Cuttack.                             ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       Branch Manager,

INDUSIND BANK Ltd.,

Branch Office at Plot No.107,1^st Floor,

Bomikhal,Near Rasulgarh Square,

              Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda

 

2.       Authorised Officer,

INDUSIND BANK Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch,Office at Plot No.1320,

Umang Plaza,Bajarakabati Road,

              Dist-Khurda

 

3.       R.T.O,Cuttack,

                        Dist: Cuttack.                                                       ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    20.09.2017

Date of Order:  03.04.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  no.1 &2 :    Mr. P.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no3:                         Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                    

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that by obtaining loan from the O.Ps no.1 & 2.he had purchased a two-wheeler Honda Dream Neo vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05X-5245 Chassis No.ME 4 JC 62DHG8020200 and Engine No.JC62E83033794  The cost of the said vehicle was of Rs.51,540/-.  He had entered into a contract with the O.Ps vide no.OCU01002H and had taken down payment of Rs.26,000/-.  The agent of the O.Ps had collected from him Rs.3054/- on 14.12.2016, Rs.2500/- on 25.12.16 and Rs.2400/- on 26.1.17, Rs.5200/- on 30.5.17 and Rs.2600/- on 23.7.2017.  Apart from all these, the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.2500/- whose receipt was not provided to him by the agent of the O.Ps.  According to the complainant, he had paid a sum of Rs.44,250/- against cost of the vehicle of Rs.48,963/- and there is a paltry due of Rs.4709/-.  Due to illness, the complainant was unable to pay two number of instalments out of the nine instalments for which his vehicle was seized by the goons of the O.Ps on 23.8.2017 near Jagatpur area.  After repossessing the vehicle, he was handed over a demand notice of Rs.35,000/- which included the total dues from him alongwith penal interest and other charges, which according to the complainant were illegal in the eye of law.  The complainant came to know that the financed amount was to be recovered from him in 16 number of instalments @ Rs.2594/-.  Thus, the O.P no.2 had asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.9144/- but according to the complainant he had defaulted twice in repaying the instalments which comes to only Rs.5188/-.  According to the complainant, he is ready to pay the demanded sum of Rs.9144/- to the O.Ps but they are neither accepting the same nor were releasing the vehicle to him.  Ultimately, the complainant has come up with this case demanding release of his vehicle and with a direction to the O.Ps to accept the  three defaulted E.M.Is to the tune of Rs.7782/- from him.  He has further demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps alongwith detention charges of Rs.500/- per day till the vehicle is released in his favour.  He further demands to be supplied with the agreement copy, schedule of payment and statement of accounts with a direction for bilateral settlement with regard to the contract disputes by discounting the higher interest and for rephasement of the loan and in the occasion of the vehicle if sold, the O.Ps be directed to return the vehicle or the value thereof.

To support his case, the complainant alongwith his complain petition has filed copies of several documents.

2.       The O.Ps no.1 & 2 have contested this case together and have filed their joint written version wherein they have urged that the complaint petition is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed, bad for the  principles of estopel,waiver and acquiescence and that the complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands, rather had suppressed the material facts.  They have relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble SCDRC,Odisha in the case of Deepak Sahu Vrs. IndusInd Bank Ltd. and also relied upon another decision in the case of Shila Kumari Vrs. TE & LC and Others reported in 2007 NCJ 570 wherein the Hon’ble NCDRC has held that when a repossession of vehicle is done following breach of hire purchase agreements terms, it does not amount to deficiency in service.  They have also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Manager,St Ary’s Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. NA Jose reported in III 1995 CPJ 58 that hirer of the vehicle held as a bailee of owner and did not have any proprietary rights over it.  And relation between financier and hirer does not come within the purview of definition of consumer.  Reliance also was placed on the decision of Ram Deshlahara Vrs. Magma Leasing Corp Ltd. reported in III 2006 CPJ 247, which also has declared the relation between hirer and financier is beyond the purview of Consumer laws.  Accordingly, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 through their written version have stated that though the complainant had obtained loan from them in order to purchase his two- wheeler vehicle,  he had defaulted in paying the E.M.Is and had submitted cheques which were dishonoured on each occasion. Accordingly, he was issued noticed to that effect but ultimately when he failed, the vehicle was repossessed after due notice to him.  Thus, it is the contention of the O.Ps through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with their written version O.Ps no.1 & 2 have filed copies of documents in order to support their stand.

          O.P no.3 through his written version has categorically mentioned therein that he has no authority to intervene into the business of the financier regarding illegal or arbitrary action of them towards seizure of the vehicle.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of O.Ps no.1 & 2 & 3, 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 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?

Issue no.iI.

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

             After perusal of the relevant copies of documents as available in this case together with the averments as made from either sides in this case, it is noticed that admittedly, the complainant had obtained loan from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 in order to purchase a two wheeler and he had defaulted in repaying the regular E.M.Is for which O.Ps no.1 & 2 had proceeded in repossessing the vehicle as because  they had advanced loan to the complainant for purchasing the said two-wheeler.  The complainant has requested for rephasement of the loan, release of the vehicle in his favour saying that he is ready to pay the defaulted E.M.Is.  But this Commission cannot force the O.Ps to accept the proposals as given by the complainant through his complaint petition and rather it is in-between the complainant and the O.Ps to go for any amicable settlement if possible.  As regards to deficiency in service, this Commission is to find out that if by repossessing the vehicle of the complainant, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 were found to be deficient in their service.  In this context, after going through the provisions of law as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act together with the cited pertinent decisions from the side of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission can never come to a conclusion that the O.Ps were deficient in their service when they had repossessed the vehicle for which they had provided finance to the complainant who had committed breach of the contract/agreement and was a defaulter in repaying the E.M.Is regularly.  As it appears, the O.Ps had followed the process of law while repossessing the vehicle from the complainant and thus, this Commission do not find any deficiency on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered:

ORDER

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 3^rdday of April,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member