Orissa

Jajapur

CC/26/2018

Sabitri Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

P.K.Rout,S.Rana

25 Sep 2020

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1. Shri Jiban ballav Das, President,

                                                                            2. Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member.

                                                                            3.  Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                   

                                             Dated the 25 th day of  September,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 26  of 2018

Sabitri Sahoo  , W/O  Payadhar Sahoo   

At . Uttargadia,  P.O.  Sarasada ,

P.S. Bhandaripokhari , Dist. Bhadrak  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                       

                                                  (Versus)

1.The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,

At/ P.O/P.S.  Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur.

2.The Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,

 Mookambika Complex,3^rd floor,No.4,Lady Desika Road, Mylapore,Chennai.

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                              

For the Complainant:                          Sri P.K.Rout, Sri S.N.Rana, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties  :                           Sri P.K.Samanta, Advocate .                       

                                                                                                     Date of order:   25.09 .2020.

SHRI  PITABAS MOHANTY,   MEMBER  .     

Deficiency in finance service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner  is a owner of truck vide regd no. OR-04-E-3882 . Due to financial   hardship  the petitioner availed  refinance for  his truck in the year 2012 for three years  amounting to  Rs 3,70,000/  from the o.p.1 and as per agreement  the Emi  was fixed Rs.17,800/- per month .The petitioner is a regular payee of   EMI  in each  month for the  year 2012  and he has already paid the  Emi  dues .

            That  on 1.2.18 the petitioner  come to know that the refinance  company is  demanding  Rs.4,41,000/-  from him as arrear outstanding .Thereafter  the petitioner asked the O.P about it  but to no result  Accordingly finding no other alternative the complainant  filed the present dispute in this commission with the prayer to direct the o.p not to take any coercive action or take possession of  the petitioner’s   truck till disposal  of the dispute .

            After notices the O.P appeared through their  learned advocate  and subsequently filed their written version taking  the following stands:

            The petitioner entered into an agreement on dt. 30.04.2014  vide loan  agreement  No.JJPUR0404290002 with the O.P for finance of a light goods vehicle bearing Regd. No. 0R-04-E-3882 of Rs.2,63,000/- having  finance charge of Rs. 108236  which is to be paid by the petitioner in 31 installments  commencing from 30.04.14 till expiry of contract on 05.11.16 and as per repayment schedule the 1^st installment was of Rs.13,456 and 2^nd  to 31 installments were of Rs.12,320/- only each respectively. Besides the aforesaid vehicle loan the complainant also incurred several other loans i.e WCL  subsistence of principal loan and became liable to repay the sum thereof vide agreement loan No.JJPURo406270004 on dt. 27.06.14  of Rs.26327/- and its finance charge of rs.3097/ which to be paid by the petitioner in 12 installments and UPURo412020006 on dt. 03.12.14 of Rs.29000/- which is to be paid by the complainant in 6 installments and JJPUR05506300007  dt. 30.06.15 of Rs.27688/- and its finance charge of Rs.3212/ in 12 installments and JJPUR0603280016 on dt.29.03.16 of Rs.1,71,000/- and its finance charge of Rs.31868/- in 7 installments and JJPUR0606270003 dt.27.06.16 of Rs. 30,676/-in 12 installments and its finance  charge of Rs.3416 in toto the petitioner availed the loan of Rs.547691/-  + Rs.149829/- = Rs697520/- in addition to this the petitioner also became liable to pay the delay payment interest ( DPI) and expenses etc for which his total liability up to 19.5.18 comes to Rs.986106.08/- out of said amount the petitioner has  paid of Rs.465150/- and balance sum of Rs.520956/- only is  outstanding  against the petitioner .

            Since 4.12.17 the petitioner has never paid a single pie to the o.p, though the O>p made several request and communication to the petitioner including over phone, but he has never turn up to pay the loan amount. The petitioner continued to commit default for consecutive months even after expiry of contract tenure but the complainant or his guarantor did not comply the terms and condition of the agreement.  It is submitted that the complainant has suppressed  the demand notice, and amount of outstanding as well as tenure of contract etc are not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble forum when the interim order was passed.

            In this fact and circumstances of the case ,the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed with cost.

On the date of hearing we heard the argument from  both the sides. After perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed fact  that the petitioner availed the refinanced   of Rs 3,70,00/-  from the O.Ps for   the above alleged vehicle .

It is undisputed facts that the petitioner  is a chronic defaulters  regarding repayment of EMI. .Hence  it is our considered view that the o.ps are empowered  to take  steps to  recover  their loan amount when the loanee is a defaulter .The petitioner failed  to establish his case.

            On the other hand the petitioner also has approached this commission to pass appropriate order not to seize the vehicle by the O.Ps  but the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and not paying the EMi regularly as per the terms and condition of the hypothecation agreement . As per observation  of Appex court/ appellate  forum the petitioner has to pay the loan amount with interest within the stipulate period but the petitioner never followed the terms  of the agreement . Accordingly it is our considered view there is no merit on the present dispute since as per observation  of Hon’ble supreme court  reported in 2006-CTJ-209- S.C  ( M.D.Orix  Auto finance ltd Vrs  Joginder Singh & another ) wherein it is held that :

“ The  O.Ps are empowered to seize  the vehicle as per terms of hypothecation agreement

Hence this Order

The dispute is dismissed on contest  without any cost .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th  day of  September,2020. under our  hand and seal of the Commission .