Orissa

Cuttak

CC/81/2016

Suresh Kumar Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

B M Mohapatra & associates

04 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.81/2016

 

    Suresh Kumar Behera,

    S/O: Sadasiva Behera,

    C/O: M.S.Sayeed,

    At:SivajiNagar,Satichoura,

    P.O:Tulasipur,P.S:Bidanasi,

   Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                        ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Branch Manager,

IndusInd Bank,Bajrakabati Road,

Po-Buxibazar,Town/Dist-Cuttack

 

2. R.T.O,Cuttack,Dist-Cuttac.                                                             ...Opp. Parties..

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    09.04.2014

Date of Order:  04.03.2023

 

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

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

For the O.P no.2:                    Self.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to earn his livelihood he had incurred a loan from O.P no.1 for a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- vide loan Agreement no.OCC01516G on 30.4.2013 for purchasing a PIAGGIO APE Tempo which was to be repaid by him in 47 number of instalments @  Rs.5469.51p starting from 20.5.2013 till 20.7.2017.  The said vehicle was registeredbearing Regd. No.OD-05-C-7068.  The total loan amount was of Rs.2,42,250/- out of which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,25,600/-.  He had spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards accessories of the said vehicle and a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards the tax, fitness, insurance etc of the said vehicle.  He was regularly paying the loan dues but on 9.5.16 at 11 A.M. O.P no.1 without intimating him or serving any prior notice had seized his said vehicle at Madhupatna area of Cuttack.  Thus, the complainant has come up with this case claiming from O.P no.1 a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the loss of his social prestige, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses and also for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation due to practice of unfair trade by the O.P.  He has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

Together with the complaint petition he has annexed several copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version through which they had urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and rather had suppressed the material facts.  They admit about the complainant incurring loan which was to be repaid by him.  According to them, the complainant became a defaulter thereby violating the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Accordingly, they had repossessed the vehicle for which they had advanced the loan to the complainant after following the legal procedures.  The O.Ps have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

They have also filed several copies of documents in order to prove their stand in this case.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised any unfair trade  ?

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 most pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

As it is made out after going through the complaint petition and the written version together with the copies of documents filed from either sides in this case that the complainant was a loanee who had executed the loan agreement bearing no.OCC01516G on 30.4.2013 with the O.P no.1 and had thereby agreed to repay the said loan in the prescribed E.M.Is without being a defaulter.  But as it appears, the complainant became a defaulter for which the terms and conditions of the loan agreement was violated and accordingly O.P no.1 had proceeded as per law and had repossessed the vehicle in question.  In this regard the O.Ps have filed certain decisions of our Hon’ble Apex Court,  in the case of  Jux ex injuria non oritur, Nullus Commodum caapere potest de injuri su propri and Nulprendra advantage de son tort demesne wherein the above principles is codified.  The O.Ps have relied upon in another case of  Hon’ble SCDRC,Orissa in the case of  Deepak Sahoo Vrs. IndusInd Bank Ltd.(copy annexed) has clearly held following the Hon’ble NCDRC’s decision in Sheela Kumari Vs. TE & LC and Others cited as 2007 NCJ 570 that, “when a repossession of vehicle is done following breach of Hire Purchase agreement terms, it does not amount todeficiency in service”.  The complainant has urged that O.P no.1 had repossessed his purchased vehicle without giving any prior notice to him.  The complainant has not filed the loan agreement copy in order to apprise this Commission that if there was any condition prescribed in the said loan agreement of the complainant that the O.P should have to serve notice upon him prior to repossessing the vehicle when the complainant was a defaulter.  On the other hand, while perusing the annexed copies of documents as attached to the written version of the O.Ps, it is noticed that they had written to the complainant about the defaulted amount corresponding to his vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-C-7068,PIAGGIO APE Tempo and they had requested him to repay the defaulted amount within 7 days.  Those letters were sent to him through registered post.  Thus, this Commission comes to a conclusion that when the complainant had defaulted in repaying the loan amount and thereby had breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the O.Ps after following legal procedures had rightly repossessed the vehicle of the complainant.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in the service on the part of the O.Ps here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and thus the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

 

 

                                              ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 4^thday of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                          President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                  Member