Orissa

Cuttak

CC/22/2016

Ramprit Gond - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R K Pattanaik

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

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

C.C No.22/2016

      Ramprit Gond

      At:Mahaveer Nagar,

      P.O/P.S:Brajarajnagar,

      Jharsuguda.                                                                           … Complainant.

 

                                Vrs.

 

1. Branch Manager,

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Jharsuguda Branch, 2^nd  Floor,

Panigrahi Complex,Behera Marg,

P.O:Indust4rial Estate,Jharsuguda.

 

2. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Represented through its

Branch Manager,Cuttack Branch,

Mahanadi Vihar,Cuttack,Odisha.                                     … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   24.02.2016

Date of Order: 10.11.2017.

 

For the complainant:           Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For O.Ps(O.P.1,2 & 3) :        Sri P.K.Roy,Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Member.

                The complaint is against deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1. Shortly the case is that the complainant purchased a 10 wheeler truck Tata-LPT-2015 bearing Regd. No.OR-23-A-5964 under finance from O.P finance company.  The total loan amount was Rs.13,44,622/- and was repayable in 48E.M.Is @ Rs.28,361/-.  The agreement was valid from October,2006 to September,2010.  The complainant had paid Rs.12,23,358/-.  The O.P demanded a further sum of Rs.7,17,190/- as on 04.04.2012 in order to grant NOC in favour of the complainant.  At the request of the O.P Finance Company, the complainant executed a 2^nd agreement on 05.02.2013 and the loan was rephrased.  As per the 2^nd agreement the loan was repayable between 05.02.2013 to 05.08.2016 in 43 E.M.Is @ Rs.19,120/- P.M. (Annexure-2).  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,78,000/- till Februiary,2016 against the agreement value of Rs.8,24,889/-.  The O.P issued a notice to the complainant to pay a further sum of Rs.4,16,971/- within 5 days, failing which the vehicle shall be repossessed by the O.Ps as per agreement. (Such notice vide Annexure-2).  The complainant was surprised to get such an notice since he had already repaid 80% of the amount as per 2^nd agreement but still the O.P is demanding to repay such a huge amount, failing which the O.P shall seize the vehicle.

Finding no other way, the complainant has filed this case with the Hon’ble Forum.  He has prayed to direct the O.Ps not to seize the vehicle since the complainant is ready and willing to repay the loan E.M.Is on easy installments.  He has also prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. The O.Ps vide their written version dt.28.05.2016 has intimated that the finance was made to the complainant from their Jharsuguda branch and no cause of action arises within the technical jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to lay down the law in this regard in the case of Sonic Surgical Vrs. National Insurance Company Ltd. vide Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 reported in 2010(1) CPC 379.  The complainant was never regular in repaying his dues.  The complainant failed to repay as per the 1^st agreement and the 2^nd agreement was made at the request of the complainant.  As on 23.03.2016 the complainant has paid Rs.4,73,150/- against the dues of Rs.9,60,962/-(Annexure-B).  Therefore, there is nothing wrong that the demand notice was issued on the complainant on behalf of the O.P. to repay the outstanding loan amount.
3. This Hon’ble Forum has passed an interim order on 11.03.2016 and has directed the O.Ps not to seize the vehicle.
4. We have gone through the case records carefully and observed that the complainant had availed a loan from the Jharsuguda Branch of the O.P. Finance Company to purchase a Tata-LPT-2515 (10 wheeler)  truck during October,2006.  The repayment schedule was fixed for 48 months i.e. from October,2006 to September,2010(Annexure-1) as filed by the complainant.  Since he failed to repay the loan regularly the O.P Finance Company rephrased the loan on 05.02.2013 and such rephasement was agreed by the complainant.  As per new agreement the advance amount was Rs.5,50,000/- and total repayable amount was Rs.8,24,889/- @ Rs.19,120/- in 43 E.M.Is.  (Annexurre-2 as filed by the complainant ).  The complainant has intimated that he had repaid Rs.4,78,000/- but he has not produced any proof/receipts to this effect that he had paid the installments in time.  The notice issued by O.P on 02.02.2016 indicates that a sum ofRs.4,16,971/-/- was outstanding including overdue charges.(Annexurfe-3) as filed by the complainant ).  As per the accounts statement as filed by the O.P vide Annexure-B, it is learnt that the complainant had paid Rs.4,73,150/- against the total dues of Rs.9,60,962/- as on 23.03.2016 including overdue charges and the over dues were Rs.4,87,812/- as on 23.03.2016 which indicates that the complainant was not repaying his dues in time and was a defaulter.
5. Basing on the facts and circumstances as  stated above, we have observed that this case is not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum because the complainant has availed the loan from the O.P.1 and ‘no cause of action’ has arisen at Cuttack.  Even if the Cuttack branch is taken as O.P No.2, the complainant has not produced any proof/receipt that the transactions were made through Cuttack Branch of the O.P.  Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce any record that repayment to the loan account was regular rather from the accounts statement as submitted by the O.P it is learnt that the repayment made by the complainant was irregular and the complainant was a defaulter for which the O.P has served the notice on him.  As such the O.Ps are not at fault.

ORDER

This case is not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.  Moreover, the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 10^th day of November,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                            Member.

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                    (  Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                              President.

                                                                                                     (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                   Member(W).