Orissa

Cuttak

CC/240/2022

Rakesh Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B M Mohapatra & associates

25 Oct 2023

ORDER

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

                                                             C.C.No.240/2022

Rakesh Kumar Nayak,

S/o: Kulamani Nayak,

At/PO:Kotsahi,Tangi,P.S:Tangi,

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.         Authorized Officer, INDUSIND BANK LTD.,

Cuttack Branch,Office at Plot No.1320,

Umang Plaza,Bajrakabati Road,

                Dist:Cuttack

 

3.         R.T.O,Cuttack, Dist:Cuttack                                                                     ...Opp.Parties

 

 

   Present:   Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      30.11.2022

Date of Order:    25.10.2023

 

 

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

For the O.Ps                :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

          Case of the complainant in short is that he availed loan by executing a Loan agreement with the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and  had purchased a truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AD-1623 having Chassis No.MB1NACHD4KPDK1864 & Engine no.KFPZ120372.   As per the loan agreement he was required to clear the loan dues in 31 numbers of monthly instalments which was revised to 57 numbers of monthly instalments @ Rs.82,000/- per month.  The commencement date of E.M.I was 20.12.2019 and the last date of payment of E.M.I is 21.8.2024.  It is alleged by the complainant that the financier has not provided any document to him including the loan agreement.  It is further case of the complainant that the O.Ps bank without any notice seized his vehicle on 19.11.2022 and demanded Rs.20,48,090.80p towards the outstanding loan dues.  The complainant approached the OPs no.1 & 2 for release of his vehicle and offered Rs.83,600/- but the O.Ps did not accept that offer and did not release his vehicle.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for release of his vehicle on receipt of Rs.83,600/- as well as  to provide him the agreement copy, accounts statement, and prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on different heads.

          The complainant alongwith his complaint petition has filed copy of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having preferred not to contest this case, the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.27.1.2023.

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 her?

Point No.ii.

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

Though the O.Ps no.1 & 2 have not filed  written version but have participated in hearing of the case and had filed written notes of submission.  It is submitted by them that the vehicle in question has already been released in favour of the complainant and the loan account has been closed.  It is argued on behalf of the O.Ps that they have acted as per the loan agreement and there is no deficiency of service on their part.

After perusing, the averments as mentioned in the complaint petition, it is noticed that the complainant had obtained finance from the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and had purchased a truck bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AD-1623.  The complainant & O.Ps no.1 & 2 had entered with an agreement and as per the said agreement, the complainant was required to pay monthly instalments.  The complainant has not produced evidence to the effect that he is paying the E.M.Is regularly.  Both parties are bound by the agreement.  As such, the seizure of the vehicle by the O.Ps no.1 & 2 due to default in payment of E.M.Is by the complainant cannot be construed as deficiency of service.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 have acted as per the agreement.  The O.Ps no.1 & 2 in their written notes of submission stated that the vehicle has been released in favour of the complainant and the Loan Account has been closed.  The complainant neither participated in the hearing of the case by filing written noes of submission nor disputed the submission of the financier.  Be that as it may, this Commission finds no infirmity of deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps 1 & 2.  O.P no.3 has no role to play in this case.  Hence, 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 the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              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 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­25^th day of October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                             

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                       Member

 

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President