Orissa

Cuttak

CC/297/2023

Sidhanta Prusty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Caterpillar Fin Service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Dec 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.297/2023

Sidhartha Prusty,

S/o: Brahmananda Prusty,

At:Mahima Nagar,Nayabazar,

Cuttack,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,

Pin-753004.                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1. CATERPILLAR Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.,

Ground Floor,CR-1,Tower-A,Prestige Shantiniketan,

The Business Precinct,Whitefield Main Road,

                               Bengaluru,Karnataka,Pin-560048,India

 

2. Sujit Swain,Regional Manager,

CATERPILLAR Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd.,

S/o: Biswanath Swain,At:Sekhbazar,

​                                P.O: Chandinichowk,P.S: Lalbag,Cuttack,

                                Dist:Cuttack,Odisha,Pin-753002.                              ...Opp.Parties.

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:    31.08.2023

Date of Order:  22.12.2023

 

For the complainants:          Ms. S.Jena, Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps                :                 None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                

The case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a construction equipment vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AW-8847 being financed by O.P no.1.  It is stated by the complainant that in the month of November,2021 the payment schedule was re-phrased and the first instalment was due from 15.12.2021 and accordingly the complainant was regularly paying the instalments upto 15.10.2022. It is the further case of complainant is that in the month of November,2022, the O.P no.1 suggested the complainant that the instalments will be collected by the O.P no.2 and accordingly money receipt will be issued by him.  But the O.P no.2 did not come regularly to collect the instalment for which the complainant failed to pay the instalments in time and thereby he had defaulted in payment of 9(nine) instalments.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps  without any notice with a malafide intention repossessed his vehicle on 20^th July,2023 although due to the negligence on the part of the O.Ps, he could not pay the instalments.  It is further alleged by the complainant that since his vehicle was illegally repossessed by the O.Ps, he filed an FIR before the IIC,Niarkarpur P.S, and thereafter the matter was settled with him and O.P no.2 on 21.7.2023 in the presence of the IIC,Nirakarpur.   It is stated by the complainant that as per the said settlement, he had to pay immediately two instalments instantly i.e on 21.7.2-23 and on 23.7.2023.   It is also stated by the complainant that as per the settlement, the next due date to pay the instalment was on 23.8.2023 but nobody came to collect the instalment dues on that date for which he paid two instalments at a time to the O.Ps through on-line banking transaction on 25.8.2023 but one payment made was  successful but 2^nd  payment could not made successful due to technical failure.  It is alleged by the complainant that without assigning any reason and violating the conditions of settlement, the O.Ps repossessed his vehicle on 25.8.2023 and gave a notice of post repossession intimation on 26.8.2023.  It is the case of the complainant that when he was regularly paying the instalments as per the settlement made in the presence of IIC,Nirakarpur and non-payment of the instalment by him is not due to his fault but due to technical error and as such repossession of the vehicle without any cogent reason is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps.  The complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps has filed this case seeking a direction to the O.Ps to compensate him the loss which he sustained  in his business amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- as well as cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.  The complainant has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

The complainant has filed some documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested this case, hence they have been set exparte vide order dt.17.10.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

 

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent point is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition together with the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had purchased a vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AW-8847 .  It is also admitted fact that the complainant had obtained loan from the O.Ps in order to purchase the said vehicle and had thereby entered into a loan agreement with them, which he had executed abiding to the terms and conditions thereof.  As per the agreement, he was supposed to pay the regular monthly instalments as per the terms and conditions thereof but the complainant himself admitted to have defaulted in payment of instalments.  The alleged settlement made between the parties in the presence of the IIC,Nirakarpur Police Station,Cuttack has no legal sanctity.  As such, violation of such settlement conditions, if any, does not carry any importance.  As it appears here in this case, the complainant while availing the loan had entered into a loan agreement thereby agreeing to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions but he had breached those terms and conditions for which the O.Ps were compelled to proceed in accordance with law and repossessed the vehicle.  Hence, it cannot be said that the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service by repossessing the vehicle of the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 22^nd day of December,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.            

 

                                                                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                    Member  

 

                                                                                                

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                            President