IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Jiban ballav Das, President,
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member.
3. Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member.
Dated the 25 th day of September,2020.
C.C.Case No. 10 of 2017
Sri Brundaban Behera , S/O Late Gobinda Behera
Vill . Basudevpur P.O. Jahanpur,
P.S/ Dist. Jajpur
……....Complainant .
(Versus)
1.Chief Manager, Shreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, 101-105, 1st floor
B wing Shivchambers sector-11, C.B Belapur, Navi Mumbai
2. Branch Manager, Shreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, At/P.O. Jajpur Road,
Dt.Jajpur.
……………..Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri P.K.Das, Advocate.
For the Opp.Parties Sri P.K.Samanta, Advocate .
Date of order: 25 .09 .2020
SHRI JIBAN BAALAV DAS, PRESIDENT .
Deficiency in finance service is the grievance of the Petitioner .
The facts shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner being an unemployed youth to maintain his lively hood purchased a vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-04-1721 with the financial help of O.ps a sum of Rs.3,75,886/- . As per agreement the no. of installments was fixed 45 @ of Rs.8350/- per month The repayment period was from 20.10.12 to 20.06 16. The petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 88,759/ till 19.09.2012 .Subsequently paid 18 installments from 20. 02 .15 to till 03.11.2015 . The petitioner already paid 2,75,709/- to the O.Ps. Due to break down of the vehicle the petitioner has failed to pay the Emi to the O.P. That on 29. 06.16 the petitioner requested through regd. letter to O.P.no.1 to provide the account statement regarding payment of installment but the O.P remained silent . The agent of O.P.no.2 threatened to repossess the vehicle by using musclemen . It is pertinent to mention here that
the vehicle can never be repossessed by any illegal way . The O.P have never turned up to provide the account statement to the petitioner , rather their conduct towards the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary because the O.Ps are demanding excess amount from the petitioner .
The cause of action arose on 27.05.16 when the O.P demanded excess amount of Rs.1,24,816/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- . Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this commission with the prayer to direct the O.P to provide current account statement of alleged repayment to the petitioner along with 10,000/- as compensation for negligence .
After notices the O.P appeared through their learned advocate and subsequently filed the written version taking following stands .
The petitioner entered into an agreement on dt.16.01.2015 vides agreement loan No.JJPUR0501150001 with the O.p for finance a goods vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-04-1721 of Rs.2,38,000/- and fianancé charge of Rs.129939/- which to be paid by the petitioner in 47 installments @Rs.8500/- and further the petitioner avail a WCL ( tire and insurance loan) vide agreement loan No.JJPUR00510070007 on dt.07.10.2915 of Rs.1972/- and its fiancé charge of Rs.2388/- which to be paid by the petitioner in 12 installments in toto the petitioner availed a loan of Rs.238000/- + Rs.19728/- =Rs.257728/- +132327 ( Finance charge) = Rs.390055/- out of said amount the petitioner has paid of Rs.36969/- . till March-2016. Subsequently 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 over phone, but he has never turn up to pay the loan amount.
Further It is submitted that a loanee if required a account statement he first has to submit a application before the concerned branch manager and after verification of identity the B.M approves the said application, then the office will provide a account statement to the said person or his authorized person , but in the instant case the petitioner or his authorized person never visited the office of the O.P and only to create a case against the O.P and to escape from the legal liability such false acquisition is made 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 there is heavy loss of the company and wrongful block of funds for which the company is facing lot of financial crises and in such circumstances the O.Ps as well as other loanees will suffer financial loss .
In this fact and circumstance of the case the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the date of hearing we heard the argument from both the sides. After perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed fact that the petitioner availed a loan of Rs 3,75,886/- for the above alleged vehicle from the o.ps.
It is also undisputed facts that the petitioner is a chronic defaulters regarding repayment of EMI. .Hence it is our considered view that the o.ps are empowered to take steps to recover their loan amount when the loanee is a defaulter .The petitioner fails to establish his case.
On the other hand the petitioner also has approached this commission to pass appropriate order not to seize the vehicle by the O.Ps but the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and not paying the Emi regularly as per the terms and condition of the hypothecation agreement . As per observation of Appex court/ appellate forum the petitioner has to pay the loan amount with interest within the stipulated period but the petitioner never followed the terms of the agreement . Accordingly it is our considered view that there is no merit on the present dispute since as per observation of Hon’ble supreme court reported in 2006-CTJ-209- S.C ( M.D.Orix Auto finance ltd Vrs Joginder Singh & another ) wherein it is held that :
“ The O.Ps are empowered to seize the vehicle as per terms of hypothecation agreement
Accordingly the dispute is dismissed on contest . Without any cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25TH day of September,2020 under our hand and seal of the Forum