IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                          

                                                   Dated the 31st day of August,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.  32  of 2017

Bishnu ch.Rout   , S/O Late  Nanda Rout

Vill . , P.O. Haripur -Jemadeipur

P.S.Sukinda, Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                           …………….    .Complainant .                                                                         

                          (Versus)

Branch Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, 1^st floor,Chorda

By pass ,Jajpur Road,  ,Dt.Jajpur .

                                                                                                                          …………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                     .                                                            

For the Complainant:                                     Sri Srikanta  Mohapatra, S.Das and associate 

For the Opp.Party   :                                       Sri Prasanta Samanta, Chinmayee Jena,Advocates.                                      

                                                                                                      Date of order:  31. 08. 2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT   .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner.

The facts  relevant  as per complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner is an un- educated youth and for self employment and  to earn  his lively hood purchased a vehicle  bearing Regd. No.OR-04-C-6399   on refinance basis with the financial assistance of the O.P having  a sum  of Rs 3,30,000/  on the strength of an hypothecation agreement . The petitioner is liable to  pay the financial amount along with interest of Rs ,5, 64,900/-  with a monthly EMI  of Rs. 11,890/ as per agreement . The petitioner  already paid all the Emi regularly and only a sum of Rs 46,509/ yet to be paid till date to the o.ps. The petitioner failed to pay the rest amount because of  the problem in  iron ore  business .

                That the O.P  has not sent any notice nor has communicated to the petitioner for payment of rest amount rather illegally seized the vehicle on the road  on dt 11.4.17 by using muscleman without any prior intimation to the petitioner  which caused  social degradation and prestige  of the petitioner  The petitioner met  the O.P  on 12 .04. 17  and  gave a  written  intimation  to pay  the rest amount in order  to get back the  vehicle but the op. did not respond for which the petitioner  sent the same through regd. Post  and asked for details of payment and balance amount against the vehicle  through  R.T.I Act.  The  O.P  is now  claiming   over dues amount on compound basis by relinquishing  the guide line of Apex court for which the petitioner  is going to be highly prejudice.

Accordingly finding no other alternative,  the petitioner knocked  the door of this Fora with prayer to direct the O.P  to release the  vehicle by  receiving  Rs. 46.509/-  as  over dues  as per law for  final  settlement of loan.

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

That  this case is not maintainable in eye of law . That it is false to say that the petitioner is paid the EMI   of Rs.11,890/- to the  o.ps company  and total amount is paid to the O.Ps company  in toto  Rs.5,64,900/-   and rest amount  of 46,509/-  shall be  paid  . It is also to  say that  the O.P  has neither sent any notice nor any communication for payment of rest amount .

                The real fact of the  petitioner’s case is that the   petitioner entered into an agreement on dt. 28.06.2010 vide agreement loan No.CHNDI 0006270002 with the O.P by financing a sum of Rs .3,30,000/- and finance charge of Rs.200268/- which to be paid by the petitioner in 45 installments and its commencing  from 05.08.2010  till expiry of contract on   05.04.2014  and as per repayment schedule  the 1^st installment  was of Rs.13,620/ and 2^nd to 45^th installment were of Rs.11,742  /..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 10.08.17  comes to Rs.11,09,703/- Out of said amount the petitioner  has  paid Rs 6,31,118/- and balance  sum of Rs.478585/ remain outstanding as would be seen from the statement of account .  Since June- 2015 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 message over phone  .The petitioner  has never turn up  to Pay the loan  amount . Thereafter the O.P  has sent  notice on dt. 01.08.16    by Regd.post with  A.D to the petitioner along with guarantor .After  the notice the vehicle was repossessed , the O>p legally seized the vehicle ..That it is  submitted that the stuck yard charge  is Rs 250/ per day commencing from 11.4.17 and seizure charges of Rs.10,000/- shall be  paid  by  the petitioner in the event of release of vehicle . On this fact and circumstances of the case the case of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed ..

                On the date of hearing we heard the argument   from the learned  advocate of the petitioner.  After perusal  of the record and documents in details  we observed that

It is undisputed fact  that the petitioner purchased the above refinance  vehicle with financial assistance of the O.P  on  the strength  of an  hypothecation  agreement . It is  also undisputed fact that the petitioner  became a defaulter  for  repayment of  loan amount of the above  vehicle  .As per term  and condition of the agreement  the  petitioner  is bound to pay the EMI in due date  .The petitioner is  also  liable

to  pay the  DPC  as  per the term of the hypothecation agreement if he did not pay the EMI in due date .  As per written version of the O.P   that  the petitioner is liable to pay the financial amount 3,30,000 /- plus  finance charges  of Rs. 200268/  in toto  Rs.5,35,050/-  in 45 installments .The O.P  also submitted  that the petitioner already paid 6,31,118/ and balance a sum of Rs 4,78,585/- remain outstanding against the petitioner .Hence it is undisputed  that  such amount arises from delay payment interest as  the petitioner did not pay the EMI in due date .

            Accordingly it is our considered view that  the O.p can take delay payment interest if the Emi  was not paid  in due date but such DPC  can not  be more than 9% as per observation of Hon,ble  High Court of Odisha passed in W.P (C) No.17720/09   and constitution  bench of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R -2001 ,p-3095     .Accordingly the dispute is disposed of of as per  order below .

                                                            O R D E R

            The O.Ps  are directed to recalculate  the DPC of the above vehicle at the rate of 9% as per observation of  Hon’ble High court of Odisha and supreme court ( on interest factor ) and recalculation revised statement of the above vehicle shall be served to the  petitioner within one   month after receipt of the order .     The petitioner is directed to  clear of  the outstanding  dues  if any within the period of 30 days to the O.P after receipt of the revised calculation statement . Accordingly the matter stands disposed of on contest. No cost .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of August,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.