Orissa

Cuttak

CC/5/2015

Upendra Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Shriram Equipments Finance Co ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra & associates

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.5/2015

 

       Upendra Behera,

       S/O:BauribandhuBenera,

       At:Ratanpur.P.O:Batira,P.S:Patkura,

       Dist:Kendrapara.                                                             ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.   Branch Manager,

Shriram Equipment’s Finance Co. Ltd.,

            Chandikhol,Jajpur

 

2.  Branch Manager,

Shriram Equipment’s Finance Co. Ltd.,

Rajarani Petrol Pump Building,

Lewis Road,Bhuaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

3. Branch Manager,

Shriram Equipment’s Finance Co. Ltd.,

Biswal Complex,MahanadiVihar,Cuttack.

 

       4.R.T.O,Kendrapara,

           Dist-Kendrepara.                                              ...Opp. Parties..

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    14.01.2015

Date of Order:  03.03.2023

 

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

For the O.P no.1  :     Mr. S.Debata,Advocate.

For the O.Ps no.2,3 & 4:                    None.

 

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 purchased a vehicle after getting financial assistance from O.P no.1.  The loan agreement no.CHNDI0 309210001 was executed accordingly for an amount of Rs.13,44,289/- and the E.M.I was fixed to be of Rs.48,400/- for 34 number of E.M.Is but the first  E.M.I was of Rs.55,933/- with repayment to be starting from 5.11.13 till 5.9.16.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,68,600/- towards the E.M.Is and out of the total loan amount he had thus repaid Rs.4,68,533/- for which the remaining loan amount was of Rs.6,85,133/-.  The complainant after purchasing the JCB 3DX SUPER 4 WD machine bearing Regd. No.OR-29A-2776 had purchased accessories in addition by spending an amount of Rs.50,000/- and also has spent an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards the tax, fitness and insurance of the said vehicle.  The complainant has stated that without serving any notice upon him as regards to the arrear dues, the O.P no.1 had repossessed his vehicle at Manguli Square for which the complainant has filed this case claiming for releasing the vehicle in his favour after receiving the defaulted E.M.Is and also to pay him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses etc.

             Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, only O.P no.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version whereas the rest of the O.Ps had not preferred to contest  this case.

             From the written version of O.P no.1, it is noticed that he has claimed about one Bauribandhu Behera who is the father of the complainant/borrower to be the owner of JCB machine bearing Regd. No.No.OR-29A-2776 initially, but the said loan was cancelled at the request of the complainant/borrower since because his father Bauribandhu Behera had health problem due to old age.  As per the request of the said Bauribandhu Behera, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred subsequently to the name of the complainant who had entered into a fresh agreement with the financier vide loan-cum-hypothecation agreement no.CHNDI0309210001executed on 23.9.2013 and the amount together with interest sanctioned was of Rs.17,01,533/- which was to be repaid in 35 number of monthly instalments effective from 5.11.13 to 5.9.16.  The first instalment was for Rs.55,933/- and the remaining 34 number of instalments were of Rs.48,400/- each.  The repossession of the vehicle was made because of non-payment of the instalment dues by the complainant/borrower who thereby had violated the terms of the agreement.  By exercising the legal rights, the O.P no.1 had taken the alleged vehicle into custody after duly intimating the complainant about the default in payment.  It is also alleged by the O.P no.1 through his written version that the vehicle in question had no insurance validity at the time of repossession which was subsequently insured during the pendency of this case.  The vehicle also does not have fitness and the road tax was due which was to be paid since October,2012 onwards.  Thus O.P no.1 through his written version has prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

          O.P no.1 alongwith his written version has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his stand.

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 ?

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.

After perusing the complaint petition, written version and the copies of annexed documents from either side, it is noticed that as per Annexure-B/1, the complainant was intimated by the O.P through letter dt.7.1.15 about the defaulting amount which was required to be paid and the same was sent to him through registered post.  As per Annexure-C/1 it is the outstanding arrear amount of the complainant/borrower alongwith the account statement as filed.  Thus, it is understood here in this case that being a defaulter, the complainant had breached the terms and conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement which was duly executed by him earlier.  The copy of the letter addressed to him by O.P goes to show that he was infact informed about the outstanding arrear dues and was also thereby called upon to clear the said outstanding arrear dues.  When the complainant failed to do so, the O.P as per the terms of the agreement had proceeded legally and had repossessed the vehicle.  Accordingly, this Commission finds no deficiency in the service of the O.Ps towards the complainant.  Hence 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.P. no.1 and exparte against O.P no.2,3 & 4 and  as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 3^rd day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                         

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                         Member