Orissa

Cuttak

CC/134/2021

Chandan Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cholmandalam Investment & Finance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Das & associates

05 Jul 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                   C.C.No.134/2021

Chandan Behera,

S/O:Late Bidyadhar Behera,

At/PO:Paradeep Gada, P.S:Paradeep Lock,

Dist:Jagatsinghpur at present

Sikharpur,PO:College Square,P.S:Chauliaganj,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                       ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

At:IFFCO Chhak,P.O/PS:Paradeep,

Jagatsinghpur-754142.

 

2.       Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

Dare House,2 N.S.C,Bose Road,

Parrys,Chennai-600001....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    27.08.2021

Date of Order:  05.07.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.K.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :           Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.  

.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                              

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a vehicle Chassis bearing No.MBINADHD9KRJA2126 dt.26.7.19 under HPA with the O.P for a tenure of 67 months @ Rs.69,700/-.  The cost of the said chassis was Rs.31,65,000/- and the O.P had financed Rs.29,76,994/-.  The balance amount of Rs.1,88,000/- was paid by the complainant at the time of delivery of the said chassis.  It took about 30 days to make the said Chassis to be brought on road after body building the same.  On 26.8.19, the vehicle was registered vide Regd. No.OD-04N-4917.  The first instalment of the E.M.I was to be paid on 5.10.19 but the O.P No.1 adjusted an amount of Rs.30,149/- towards the interest on dt.5.9.19 from the E.M.I as paid for which the first instalment became due on just after 11 days of the registration of the said vehicle.  The complainant however had managed to continue paying the EMIs upto June,2021 but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there were shut down, lock down for which plying of the said vehicle was totally disrupted thereby the complainant who was depending solely on the said vehicle for maintenance of his family; could not clear the EMIs regularly.  The O.P No.1 had forcibly collected a sum of Rs.1,42,905/- from the complainant towards interest with effect from 4/20 to 8/20 as per the statement of account supplied by them to the complainant.  Accordingly, the O.P No.1 had collected a sum of Rs.6,25,443/- as interest upto 6/2021 whereas the deduction towards capital amount was of Rs.4,89,757/-.  Thus, it is alleged by the complainant that there was serious violation in the principles of natural justice and there was also violation in the terms and conditions.  When the O.Ps were not listening to the grievances of the complainant, the complainant was forced to file this case seeking direction to the O.Ps for reducing the EMI amount and also to enhance the duration period of EMI instalment.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed written version jointly.  As per the written version of the O.Ps, there was no cause of action for the complainant to file this case and the same is to be dismissed being not maintainable.  It is alleged in the written version of the O.Ps that rescheduling the agreement and extending the payment of loan EMI which is fixed earlier is not within the purview of the court.  Of course they admit about providing the loan with the instalments as mentioned in the complaint petition, but the complainant was a chronic defaulter for which they had to seize the vehicle since when the complainant was unable to pay the outstanding arrears.  So it is urged by the O.Ps that there was no deficiency in service on their part and the case is to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

            Either parties to this case have submitted copies of documents in order to prove their respective case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments of the complaint petition so also the contentions of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues for adjudication of this case.

            i.          Whether there was any cause of action to file this case.

            ii.         Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

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

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue No.3.

            Out of four issues, issue no.3 is taken up first for consideration.

            It is admitted fact that the complainant had obtained finance from the O.Ps and had purchased a Chassis which became roadworthy after one month of its purchase and the vehicle was being used by the complainant in order to earn his livelihood.  It is also not in dispute when the complainant became a defaulter the O.Ps had seized the vehicle in question belonging to the complainant.  In this aspect, the complainant alleges that  by violating all the terms and conditions of the contract, the O.Ps had seized his vehicle which is against the principles of natural justice.  On the other hand, it is alleged by the O.Ps that since because the complainant was found to be a chronic defaulter, who had not deposited the EMIs, the O.Ps had to seize the vehicle in question in order to get back their money.  In this matter it would be worthwhile to put the pertinent decision of our Apex Court in the case of S Patabiraman  Vrs. Sp St Palaniappan 1994(2) CLT 261(NC) and also has relied upon another Decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case – Bharti Knitting Company Vrs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier(1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein it is held that, “ when the complainant signs contract documents he is bound by its terms and conditions xxxx”. 

            Hence the contract when executed in between the offerer and the accepter, the terms and conditions of the said contract binds either sides of the contract and both of the parties to the said contract are to abide by the terms and conditions of the said contract.  Thus, by obtaining finance as per hire purchase scheme, the complainant here in this case had executed the contract and according to the same he has to go by the terms and conditions of the said contract.  When he defaulted in repaying the EMIs, as per the terms of contract the O.Ps had taken away his vehicle.  Hence deficiency in service is not noticed as alleged by the complainant here in this case.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issues No.1 & 2.

            When the vehicle of the complainant was taken away by the O.Ps, sine because the complainant became a defaulter in repaying the EMIs and thereby violating the terms and conditions of the contract executed in between the complainant and the O.Ps, it can never be said that the complainant had a cause of action to file this case and accordingly this case as filed can never be said to be maintainable.

 

 

Issue No.4.

            The complainant has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to reduce the EMI amount and to enhance the duration of the EMI period so as to enable him to repay the loan obtained by him.  When it is already held that the complainant has executed the agreement with the O.Ps and has to abide by the terms and conditions of the said contract executed, thus rescheduling the terms and conditions is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission and thus, the prayer as made by the complainant cannot be granted by this Commission.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 5^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member