Orissa

Cuttak

CC/33/2016

Deepak Kumar Keshari - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R K Pattanaik

12 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

C.C No.33/2016

               Deepak Kumar Keshari,

At:Ichinda,Rairangpur,

P.S:Rairangpur,Dist:Mayurbhanj.                                             … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.  Branch Manager,

        Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Keonjhar Branch Office,

At:2^nd Floor,Maruti Arcade,SBI Road,

Thana Chhak,Dist:Keonjhar.

 

2.  Branch Manager,

        Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch Office,

At:Mahanadi Vihar,Cuttack.                                                       … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:              Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Presiding Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:     31.03.2016

Date of Order:  12.04.2017.

 

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

For O.Ps(O.P.1 & 2) :    Sri P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy,Presiding Member.

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

1. In nutshell the complaint is that the complainant purchased one 2^nd hand Tata Truck-LPT 2515” under finance from the O.Ps.  The loan was sanctioned vide loan agreement No.KEONJO 305080003 dt.8.5.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and complainant invested a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from his own source.  Thus the total cost of the vehicle comes to Rs.6,00,000/- and the same was hypothecated to O.Ps.  The loan was repayable in 34 E.M.Is @ Rs.14,650/- during the period from 20.6.2013 to 20.3.30216.  The vehicle was registered with R.T.O,Mayurbhanj vide Regd. No.OR-11-D-7455. (Annexure-1).  The vehicle was engaged in transportation of iron ore.  The complainant was paying the EMIs.  But due to closure of mines the complainant was not able to use the truck for transportation of iron ore and failed to repay the EMIs.  Therefore, the O.Ps seized the vehicle on 10.3.16 at about 10 A.M. at Keonjhar,Mayurbhanj while the said truck was unloading cement.  The O.ps supplied seizure list and took possession of the vehicle by threatening the driver of the complainant (seizure list vide Annedure-2).  Although the complainant was willing to repay the defaulted E.M.Is to the O.Ps, the O.Ps did not agree to release the vehicle and demanded to repay outstanding loan balance.  The O.Ps issued a notice to the complainant on 10.3.16 and intimated to repay a sum of Rs.4,31,617/-(balance as on 10.3.16) within a period of 7 days failing which the matter will be referred to the arbitrator (Annexure-3).  The complainant requested the O.P to release the vehicle but it was in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant has taken shelter of this Hon’ble Forum. He has prayed to direct the O.Ps for release of the vehicle, to pay compensation for mental agony and harassment amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Vide a misc. case dt.22.3.16 the complainant had also prayed this Hon’ble Forum to direct the O.Ps not to sale/transfer the vehicle.
2. The O.ps vide their written brief dt.28.7.16 have intimated that the complainant has availed finance from their Keonjhar branch.  All payments and transactions relating to the said vehicle are being done at Keonjhar Branch.  Hence no cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- vide agreement No.KEONJO 305080003 dt.8.5.2013. The total agreement value was Rs.5,01,193/- which was repayable in 34 E.M.Is from 20.6.13 to 20.3.16 @ Rs.14,650/- P.M except the Ist EMI which was Rs.17,743/-.  The complainant had also availed a small working capital loan worth Rs.28,671/-.  The complainant is a chronic defaulter and as on 21.7.2016 he was liable to pay Rs.4,93,055/-.  The O.Ps were constrained to take possession over the financed vehicle in terms of loan agreement with prior notice to the complainant. After repossession of the vehicle, pre-sale notice was also issued.  The complainant was repeatedly reminded regarding his contractual liabilities before taking possession and after possession of the said vehicle in terms of loan agreement.  Hence there is no “unfair trade practice” or deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
3. We have gone through the case in details, perused the documents minutely as filed by the complainant and as well as by the O.Ps.  Heard the learned advocates from both the sides at length and have observed that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,50,000/- vide agreement No.KEONJO 305080003 dt.8.5.2013 and the said loan was repayable @ Rs.14,650/- in 34 E.M.Is during the period from 20.6.13 to 20.3.16 excluding the Ist EMI which was Rs.17,743/-.  The complainant has also availed a working capital loan of Rs.28,671/-.  The complainant was a defaulter for which the vehicle was repossessed by the financer. On 10.3.16 the O.Ps had issued a notice to the complainant through their advocate to repay a sum of Rs.4,31,617/- within a period of 7 days which the complainant has failed to pay.  On 02.04.16 this Hon’ble Forum has directed the O.Ps not to sale/transfer of the vehicle “Tata Truck-LPT 2515” bearing Regd. No.OR-11-D-7455 till appearance.  The total outstanding against the complainant as on 10.3.16 was Rs.4,31,617.00 and the same was Rs.4,93,055/- as on 21.7.16.  It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide case No.111(2012) CPJ 4(SC) in Suryapal Singh Vs. Sidha Vinayak Motors and another as under:-

“Under the hire purchase agreement, it is the financier who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retains the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee, therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of installments has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financier”.  Therefore, we have observed that the financier (O.P.) is not at fault for repossessing the vehicle. “

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004(in the case of M/s. Sonic Surgical Vrs. National Insurance Company Ltd.) has decided as follows.  In our opinion the expression “branch office”“in the amended Section 17(2) would mean the Branch Office where the cause of action has arisen.  Since no cause of action has arisen at Cuttack Branch of the O.Ps, the case is not coming under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

 

                Although the complainant made a party to O.P No.2 i.e. Cuttack Branch office of O.P finance company, the complainant failed to prove neither any financial transactions made with O.P No.2 nor any cause of action partly or fully arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum.

                                                                                                ORDER

                Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above and to meet the ends of justice, it is held that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.  Moreover, the complainant also failed to prove that the case is coming within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the case is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 12^th  day of April,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                    Presiding Member.

 

                                                                                                  (Smt. Sarmistha Nath) 

                                                                                                        Member(W).