Orissa

Jajapur

CC/69/2018

Benudhar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Amar Kumar Routray

16 Oct 2020

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das, President.

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, I/C President,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                 

                                          Dated the 16^th day of  October,2020                                                   

                                                          C.C.Case No. 69  of 2018

Benudhar Sahoo, S/O Madhusudan Sahoo  

Vill-/  P.O .Kalan P.S. Kuakhia  Dt.Jajpur 

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                             

                                                  (Versus)

Branch Manager  , Sriram Transport Finance Ltd, At/P.O/P.S.Jajpur Road

Near Brahmani Hotel bye pass Road,Dt.Jajpur ( Represented through its Manager)

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                                             

For the Complainant:                              Sri A.K.Routray,  Advocates  .

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

                                                                                                     Date of order:  16 .10. 2020.

MISS  SMITA  RAY , LADY   MEMBER   .

Deficiency in financial service  is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The facts as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition shortly are that the  petitioner  is an unemployed youth and to maintain his livelihood he purchased a Ashok  leyland Truck  bearing Regd No. OR-04-M-5166 by availing a loan  of Rs.10,50,000/- from the O.P on the strength of  hypothecation agreement .That  as per terms and condition of hypothecation agreement  the loan amount with interest comes to  Rs17,31,245/-  and shall be repaid within the stipulated period . That as per hypothecation agreement the petitioner  is directed by  the o.p to make payment with 9% interest.  Similarly  the petitioner  has paid Rs. 7,08,600/- to the  O.P  but due to accident of the vehicle and  financial stringency  as well as  stop of mines  transportation and  rainy season the petitioner has became defaulter and at present he is liable to make payment of Rs 14,047,21/-  towards defaulted amount as per demand of the  O.P.  

            That as against the above defaulted amount at present the O.P is trying  to sell the above vehicle after repossession  . Further it is pertinent to mention  here that the o.p charging 36% DPC  instead of 9% on the outstanding  defaulted amount in violating the observation of Hon’ble High Court of Odisha passed in W.P©  No.17720/2008  and constitution bench of Hon’ble  Supreme court reported in AIR-2001,p- 3095 .  That prior to the present dispute the petitioner had filed the  dispute before this Hon’ble commission bearing  C.C.Case no.19/18  narrating the loan amount of Rs 17,31.245/- and Rs 10,50,000/-   in total Rs.27,81,245/-   which was disposed of  considering the jurisdiction . Now the petitioner has availed the refinance  loan of Rs 10,50,000/- from the O.P  after clearing the original loan of Rs 17,31,245/- Now the present  dispute is within the value of 20 lakhs . That due to  arbitrary action of the O.p the petitioner suffered  mental agony and harassment. Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner  filed this dispute in  this commission with the prayer to direct the  O.P not to seize /repossess the vehicle till finalization of the   present dispute and calculate the  D.P.C @  9% per annum instead of 36% .

            After receipt of notice the O.P appeared though their learned advocate  and subsequently filed the written version  taking  following stands:-

            The petitioner entered into an agreement on dt. 26.03.2015 vide agreement loan no.JJPUR0503250002 with the O.P for finance a heavy goods vehicle ( Ashok ley land) bearing Regd.No.OR-04M-5166 of Rs.10,50,000/- having  finance charge of Rs.486799/- which to be paid by the petitioner in 48 installments   commencing from 26.03.15 till expiry of contract on 05.03.19. Besides the aforesaid vehicle loan the petitioner also incurred several other loans i.e WCL ( tire and insurance loan etc) during subsistence of principal loan and became liable to repay the sum thereof vide agreement loan No.JJPUR0505230002 on dt.25.05.2015 of Rs.20,000/- and it paid by the petitioner in 4 installments and JJPURO603310004 on dt.31.03.16 of Rs.290000/- which is to be paid by the petitioner in 35 installments and it’s finance charge is of Rs.188513/- and JJPURO605210006 dt. 21.05.16 of Rs.34,312/- and its finance charge of Rs.3824/- in 12 installments and JJPUR07073170007 on dt.17.03.17 of Rs.41,238/- and its finance charge of Rs.5550/- in 12 installments .In toto the petitioner availed the loan of Rs.14,35,550/- + Rs.6,84,686/- ( finance charge) =Rs.21,20,236/- .The said agreement has been matured on 05.03.19 .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 04.03.19 comes to Rs.26,09,381/- .Out of said amount the petitioner has paid of Rs.6,78,600/- and balance sum of Rs.19,30,781/- + other charges i.e future principal etc Rs.381476./- in toto Rs.23,12,257/- only remained outstanding as would be seen from the statement of account (SAO).

            Since 04.06.17 the petitioner has never paid a single pie to the O.P, though the O.P made several request and communication till  03.11.17 to the petitioner including over phone, but he has never turned up to pay the loan amount. The petitioner continued to commit defaults for consecutive months even after expiry of contract period , but the petitioner or his guarantor did not comply the aforesaid notice. It is submitted that the petitioner 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. It is further submitted that after dismissal of the first complaint case No.19-18 on 31.08.18 when the O.P contacted to the petitioner for payment of arrear amount the petitioner has filed this case 2^nd time only to  harass the O.p in order to cheat the O.P. Since the contract tenure has already been expired and there remains substantial sum to be recovered from the petitioner it would be prorper and justified on the part of this forum to hear the case expeditiously. The O.p is leading non-banking finance company and money has been advanced  to the petitioner is hardest penny of the company and due to non payment of outstanding dues heavy loss of the company and wrongful block of funds for which the company facing lot of financial crises.  In that circumstances the O.Ps as well as other loanee will suffer financial loss. That O.P never intent to harass his bonafide customer at any point of time and now a days so many private finance companies doing business in market, so the O.ps has no  intention to lose a customer from his hand. In this fact and circumstances this case has no merit and liable to be dismissed with cost.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate from the side of O.P.

After perusal of the record and documents in details  it is undisputed  fact  that the petitioner  availed the loan from the O.P  against the alleged vehicle.  It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner became defaulter of Emi . In this contest  after perusal of the observation  of Hon’ble  Supreme court  reported in 2006-CTJ-209-S.C (M.D Orix Auto Vrs joginder singh) wherein it is  held that  the O.P  is empowered as per term and condition of the agreement to seize and sale  the financed  vehicle in case of default in repayment of monthly Emi  of the loan amount but  such seizer and sale  must be as per law in view of the observation  of Hon’ble National Commission 2016(11) –CLT-31(N.C)  ( A.V Finance India Pvt. Ltd Vrs. Ramdas Raghunath patil)        

On the other hand the petitioner has  taken the stand that the O.P  is charging  36% of DPC against the defaulted amount. Accordingly  we are inclined to hold that the O.P  entitled to charge DPC as per hypothecation agreement if the petitioner became defaulter for repaying the Emi is stipulated time but such charging of DPC should not  be more than 9% as per observation  of Hon’ble Odisha  High court vide W.P( C) No. 17720/2008 as well as constitution bench of S.C reported in  AIR- 2000(1)p- 3095-S.C, 

 In view of the above observation  from our side we dispose of the dispute as per order below:- 

The dispute is partly  allowed  against the O.P on contest .  The O.P  is directed to recalculate  the DPC at the rate  of 9% per annum.  The revise copy of the  statement of account will be sent by O.P to  the petitioner through  R.P post  within one month after receipt of this order .The petitioner is also directed to pay the arrear amount ( if any) after receipt of recalculation statement  of account within the period fixed by the O.p.  No cost.

 

This order is pronounced in the open Commission on this the 16th day of October,2020. under our hand and seal of the Commission.