PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No- 90/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Arun Kumar Jena, 

S/O-Hrusikesh Jena,

R/O-Sarlakani, Near I.C. Colony,

Po-Dhankauda, Ps- Sadar, Dist-Sambalpur-768006.    ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

Cholamandal Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

At/Po/Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur-768004           . …....……….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Sri. H.K. Babu, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P.                      :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo, Adv. & Associates

Date Of Filing :29.11.2022,Date Of Hearing :17.07.2023, Date Of Judgement : 21.08.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant was an educated unemployed. The Complainant decided to purchase a bus for his self employment. One bus Eicher 10.90 was financed by the Op in favour of the Complainant on 31.12.2017 and a sum of Rs. 17, 07,169/- was financed amount payable in sixty numbers of EMIs commencing from 05.02.2018 to 05.01.2023, a sum of Rs. 41,300/- each installment and a sum of Rs. 2, 00,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the OP in cash at the time of finance of the bus. Hence the total value of the bus was Rs. 19, 07,169/-. The Complainant used to pay all the EMIs till January, 2022 but he was not able to pay EMI for the month of February, 2022 due to financial crunch in his family caused by Corona Pandemic 2019. The bus met an accident on 03.03.2022 at Dhanbad, Jharkhand with one container truck on the front Site consequently the front side and engine of the bus was totally damaged and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was spent for repairing and restoration. The insurance company had given only Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the repairing of the bus. The Complainant intimated about the accident. The staff and recovery agent of the OP came to the Complainant in the month of June, 2022 and insisted/harassed/humiliated the Complainant to pay the entire EMIs but the Complainant requested them several times to wait for few months in view of Corona pandemic and the accident for payment but they turned deaf ear towards the Complainant and took way the bus from the Complainant forcefully by intimating on 22.06.2022. Thereafter the Complainant went to the office of the OP and requested them to return the bus to him which is the only source of his income, but the Manager refused the Complainant and managed by persuading an offer of one time settlement for the bus for a sum of Rs. 5, 00,000/- and out of persuasion of the manager, the Complainant made an request one time settlement for a sum of Rs. 5, 00,000/- for the bus on 25.06.2022. However, the OP neither settle the matter nor given the bus to the Complainant but it was dumped under open sky of the stock yard of the OP without any protection, due care and maintenance of the bus thus it become junk and beyond repairing and it cost life scrape and in such event the Complainant suffered irreparable loss.

2. The version of the O.Ps is that the Complainant approached the OP for availing loan to finance a VF Prime LPT 4223 and the OP sanctioned Rs. 36, 49,655.00 to the Complainant. Accordingly a vehicle loan cum hypothecation agreement was executed between them. As per the explicit terms and conditions of the said agreement the Complainant had agreed to liquidate the entire loan amount of the vehicle in total 87 monthly EMI as per the repayment schedule. Any delay or default in making payment of any such installments would attract overdue and such other charges as more fully set out there under and the OP will be entitled to take the possession of the said vehicle as per right and remedies in the agreement. As per the terms and conditions contained in the said agreements the said vehicle was hypothecated to the OP as security for due repayment of the loan. Such security was enforceable by the OP on the occurrence of any of the events of default or violation of the terms and conditions as contemplated in the said agreement. In due course of time the Complainant could not 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 remained unpaid. As on date there is a total outstanding of Rs. 12, 52,284 /- towards installments dues and over dues charge. In view of such continuous default of installments dues the OP has approached the Complainant through letters and personal contracts to pay the same but the Complainant deliberately and intentionally not clearing up the said dues and retained the said vehicle under his custody without any reasonable excuse. The said vehicle was purchased and being used for commercial purpose and not for earning of the livelihood of the Complainant. The transaction between the parties governed under the Arbitration Act, 1996 and hence the present complain petition is not maintainable.

3. From the above it is found that as per the explicit terms and conditions of the said agreement the Complainant had agreed to liquidate the entire loan amount of the vehicle in total 87 monthly EMI as per the repayment schedule. Any delay or default in making payment of any such installments would attract overdue and such other charges as more fully set out there under and the OP will be entitled to take the possession of the said vehicle as per right and remedies of the agreement. The Complainant could not able to pay the required EMIs in time and thereby became a chronic defaulter as a result huge outstanding amount of default of such EMIs remained unpaid. Further the Complainant has not given any evidence that he has purchased the vehicle for his self-employment and himself has engaged in the said vehicle for his livelihood. The Complainant failed to file the one time settlement notice also. The Complainant has purchased two vehicles with the financial assistance of the O.P. i.e. OD 15 K 0822 and OR 23 E 3777.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case the case it is observed that the vehicles are used for commercial purpose as the Complainant has two commercial vehicle. So the Complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hand. Hence the case is dismissed on contest.

                     Order pronounced in the open Court today on 21^st day of Aug, 2023.

                     Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.