Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/36/2021

Sushila Devi Ray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Rai, R.Seth & Associates

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 36/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Sushila Devi Ray,

W/O-Late Pilis Ray,

R/O- Gualapada, Lamtibahal, Po-Lamtibahal

PS- Brajarjnagar, Dist-Jharsuguda

Presently Residing at Ganeshnagar, Rengali

Po/Ps- Rengali, Dist-Sambalpur(Odisha)                       ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

Branch Manager,

Tata Motors Finance Co. Ltd.

Sambalpur Branch

At-Near Ainthapali Chowk

Dist-Sambalpur(Odisha)                                                         …………...Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. S.P.Rai, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :-       Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:28.07.2021,  Date of Hearing :06.03.2023  Date of Judgement : 24.04.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that during the life time of Complainant’s husband Late Pulis Ray has availed finance from the OP for an amount of Rs. 30,30,000/- on dtd. 29.04.2018 for a tenure of 67 EMI i.e. Rs. 69,750/- and purchased TATA LPT 3718 TC having its Regd. No. OD 23G 3429 to maintain livelihood being self employed and paid more than Rs. 18,85,730/- to the OP towards repayment of aforesaid loan as on March, 2021. Due to lock down of Covid-19 pandemic situation RBI issued a guideline of monetarium of six months from April, 2020 to September, 2020 at that time the vehicle not plied. After completion of monetarium from October, 2020 to December, 2020 the vehicle  was not properly working due to the effect of Covid-19 for that reason Complainant could not deposit some EMIs which was under monetarium period, but the OP not followed the guideline of RBI and not provide any monetarium relating to the above loan account and pressurize the Complainant’s husband for rescheduling of   the above loan account and also threatened to seize the vehicle. Due to unfair trade practice of the OP the husband of the Complainant suffered hypertension, mental agony for which he expired on dtd. 15.04.2021. The Complainant’s husband has availed Loan Surakshya/Pro LI Policy at the time of availing loan, but after the death of Puplis Ray the OP denied to give any PRO LI Plolicy in this loan account and the Complainant get to surprise on receiving of documents supplied by the OP to the Complainant regarding another loan agreement paper on dtd. 15.06.2021 vide Loan Account No. 5003817992 dtd. 15.03.2021 for an amount of Rs. 23,30,199/-for a period of 60 EMI i.e. Rs. 54,860/- each and also threatened to seize the above vehicle, if not paid the default 2 EMIs. While granting loan to the Complainant’s husband, the agents of the OP came to the residence of the Complainant and requested to execute loan agreement with an assurance to charge the reducing rate of interest @ 8.5 per annum. Believing the version and after confirmation from the office of the OP, the Complainant’s husband signed on the blank agreement form along with other alleged relevant documents at the request of the OP in presence of witness present over there in good faith. The OP demanding EMI of forge loan account from the Complainant and  threatening to seize/repossess the said vehicle. The OP had supplied the account statement to the Complainant, but as per the account statement of the OP installment overdue of Rs. 1,09,720/- and other overdues of Rs. 2,110/-. The Complainant is not liable to pay any EMI and overdue charges unless it is properly explained by the OP that the another loan account is genuine or forged. As per the guideline of RBI all the finance vehicle/loanee/owner of the vehicle has to give a Loan Surkshya/Pro LI and as per the terms of Loan Surakshya/Pro LI after death of the loanee, the balance EMI is forfeited and loan account is closed and no any liability to his legal heir/successor to pay any EMIs are in future. The Complainant is ready to pay the installment regularly. The none payment of agreed installment is due to the omissions and commissions of the OP and not due to any latches of the Complainant. The OP has not only committed act of deficiency in service, disobeyed the guideline of RBI of monetarium in Covid-19 Pandemic situation and perpetrated unfair trade practice but also committed criminal acts by giving threatening to seize the vehicle.

 

2. The Written Version of the O.P is that the Complainant approached the OP for availing loan to finance a TATA LPT 3718 TC Truck and the OP finance company agreed to sanctioned Rs. 30,74,200.00 to the Pulis Ray for commercial purpose. Accordingly asked the borrower to execute the vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement, which was executed between the Complainant and OP and the said loan was disbursed. As per the explict terms and conditions of the said agreement the Complainant had agreed to liquidate the entire loan amount of the vehicle in total 67 monthly EMIs starting from Dtd. 02.07.2018 and thereby ending on dtd. 02.01.2024. Any delay or default in making payment of any such instalments would attract overdue and such other charges as more fully set out there under and the OP Company will be entitled to take the possession of the said vehicle as per right and remedies of the Agreement. In due course of time the said Pulis Ray could not be able to pay the required EMIs in time and there by became a chronic defaulter and as a result a huge outstanding amount of default of such EMIs has remain unpaid. Although six months moratorium has given to the Complainant during Corona pandemic, the borrower Pulis Ray could not regularize the loan account and requested the OP on dtd. 15.03.2021 to restructured the loan account. As per request, the OP finance company restructures the loan account. The Complainant claimed to have the wife of the borrower not yet produced the legal heir certificate and in order to avoid the legitimate dues of the OP has filed the instant complain petition with false, frivolous contentions envisaged in the complaint itself. The vehicle is being used for the purpose of commercial gains which denotes that the said vehicle was purchased and being used for the commercial purpose and not for earning of the livelihood of the Complainant. Arbitration Proceeding against this contract has been initiated before the Learned Arbitrator M. Justin George vided Case No. TMFL/ARB/JANUARY, LOT-199 (2020)/20 and interim Order under sec. 17 passed on 22/02/2020, the Complainant has not participated in the proceedings though the notices were served in proper manner to the Customer. So TMFL has every right to repossess the vehicle as per Order u/s 17 passed by the learned Arbitrator. Further the learned advocate for the OP submitted that the Complainant is a resident of Brajaraj Nagar and no address proof of Rengali has been filed. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Complainant is enjoying the possession of the vehicle without payment of EMI’s as per the restructured loan and therefore also the Complainant is not liable for any relief as claimed for and should be dismissed.
3. From the above it is found that the statements and contents of the complaint petition of the Complainant are all untrue and incorrect. The Complainant has suppressed the actual facts of the matter and also not given any evidences regarding allegations mentioned in his petition. In due course of time the Complainant could not be able to pay the required EMIs in time and thereby became a chronic defaulter and with the result a huge outstanding amount of default of such EMIs has remain unpaid. The Complainant has not given any address proof of Rengali. Further there is already an arbitration proceeding awarded by the Learned Arbitrator M. Justin George vided Case No. TMFL/ARB/JANUARY, LOT-199 (2020)/20 and interim Order under sec. 17 passed on 22/02/2020. The Complainant not disclosed the said facts, which proves that the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hand. Hence it is ordered that the case is dismissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 24^th day of April, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.