Orissa

Cuttak

CC/173/2022

Hemanta Kumar Mohapatra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

A Pattanaik & associates

10 May 2024

ORDER

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

                                                    C.C.No.173/2022

 

Hemanta Kumar Mohapatra,

S/o: Late Gourahari Behera,

                   At/Po:Kalapathar,P.S:Baideswar,

                   Dist:Cuttack-754009.                                            ...Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.        CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD.,

Regd. Office at Dare House, No.2,

N.S.C Bose Road,Parrys,Chennai-600001,

                        Tamilnadu.

 

2.        Regional Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.,

At Plot No.559,Annapurna Complex,1^st Floor,

Lewis Road,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

3.        Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.,

Nayagarh Branch,At:Sinduria(Durga Prasad),

P.O/Dist: Nayagarh.                                                                       ….Opp. Parties.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    29.08.2022

Date of Order:  10.05.2024

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.Pattnaik,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 bereft unnecessary details in short is that in order to earn his livelihood, he had purchased a second-hand truck. The said truck was initially purchased by one Bijay Kumar Swain but since because the said Bijay Kumar Swain had surrendered his truck bearing Regd. No.OD-02-AF-4505, as per the advice of the O.Ps and being assured of getting finance, the complainant had decided to purchase the said truck.  Accordingly, Loan Agreement bearing No.XSHUNAY00003302621 was executed in-between the complainant and the authorised signatory of the O.Ps on 7.11.2019. An amount of Rs.17,76,816/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant which was to be repaid alongwith interest in 60 number of instalments effective from 10.12.2019.  The complainant had repaid a sum of Rs.6,00,309/- as on 10.1.2022 but the vehicle stood in the name of the previous owner without being transferred to the name of the complainant.  On 25.2.2022, the henchmen of the O.Ps came to the house of the complainant and had taken away the truck of the complainant after threatening and abusing him.  The matter was reported by the complainant at Baideswar Police Station on 3.3.2022 and the complaint No. no.24485006072200003 was registered there that day.  The copy of the Arbitration award was delivered to the complainant wherein the O.Ps were at liberty to repossess the financed vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-02-AF-4505.  The said Exparte Arbitration award was passed on 21.3.2022.  When the complainant contacted to one of the O.Ps, he was abused in vulgar language and threatened also.  After repeated correspondences, the O.Ps had issued a letter dated 18.7.22 which was not served upon the complainant but the O.Ps had claimed therein for a sum of Rs.19,39,587/- towards the full and final settlement in view of the loan agreement.  The complainant could subsequently know that the said vehicle in question was involved in a criminal case relating to G.R.Case No.753/2021 pending before the learned JMFC,Chendipada,Anugul.  The vehicle was thereafter released in favour of the previous owner.  As such, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment, another sum of Rs.2,25,000/- for the loss of his income for 32 months and further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards his litigation expenses.

          The complainant has prayed for direction to the O.Ps in order to handover the vehicle in question to him or in the alterative, to refund the deposits as made by him alongwith interest thereon @ 9% per annum from 13.5.2022 onwards.  He has also prayed for a direction to the O.Ps to provide him statement of account and further has prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has annexed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have stated that the complainant has no cause of action for this case since because the O.Ps had revoked Arbitration clause and as per the order U/S-17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, they had repossessed the vehicle from the complainant.  As such, according to them, the case of the complainant is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service nor practice of any unfair trade. The O.Ps agreed through their written version that they had provided loan to the tune of Rs.17,76,681/- to the complainant on 7.11.2019 in order to enable him to purchase a second hand truck which was seized from it’s previous owner Bijay Kumar Swain as because he had defaulted  in paying the loan dues.  Since because the complainant did not repay the EMIs, the O.Ps had revoked the arbitration clause and had appointed an Arbitrator.  The Arbitrator had passed award on dated 21.3.2022 wherein the O.Ps were authorised to repossess the vehicle in question and accordingly they had repossessed the said vehicle.  It is for the said reason, the O.Ps have urged through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with the written version the O.Ps have filed a copy of the award as passed by the Arbitrator U/S-17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996.

          The complainant has filed evidence affidavit in this case also but the same when perused, it appears to be a reiteration of the contents as made by the complainant in his complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue no.II.

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

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavit as filed by the complainant as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly the complainant had purchased a second-hand truck bearing Regd. No. OD-02-AF-4505 which was initially purchased by one Bijay Kumar Swain but the vehicle was repossessed subsequently.  It is also admitted that the O.Ps had sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs.17,76,816/- to the complainant in order to enable him to purchase the said vehicle for which they had executed Loan Agreement bearing No.XSHUNAY00003302621 on 7.11.2019 with the complainant.  It was agreed therein that the complainant is to repay the loan alongwith interest thereon in 60 number of monthly instalments which was effective from 10.12.2019 onwards.  The complainant has alleged that the henchmen of the O.Ps had  come to his house on 25.2.2022 at about 2 P.M and had repossessed his truck after threatening and abusing him.  The complainant is silent about the cause of such repossession by the O.Ps.  However, he admits about the Arbitration proceeding and award which according to him was an exparte order.  Per contra, the O.Ps have urged that since when the complainant became a defaulter and was not paying the EMIs they were constrained to revoke the arbitration clause as per the Loan Agreement and had preferred arbitration.  As per the order passed by the Arbitrator so appointed U/S-17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act which was passed on 21.3.22, the O.Ps were authorised to repossess the truck from the possession of the complainant since because the complainant was a defaulter in making payment of the said loan.  As per Annexure-A, which is copy of the order of the Arbitrator passed on 21.3.22 when perused it is noticed that since because the complainant had not repaid the loan amount or had not surrendered the truck, the O.Ps were authorised to take possession of the truck as because hey had advanced loan in favour of the complainant and were also authorized to sell the said truck in order to get back the advanced money as given.  Accordingly, the O.Ps had proceeded in this case and had repossessed the truck from the possession of the complainant through their agents on 25.2.22 at 2 P.M.  Keeping such facts and circumstances of this case in mind, this Commission finds no deficiency in service of the O.Ps and also do not find practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps here in this case.   Accordingly, this issue goes against the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as made by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.            

                                                                                 

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                                   

 

                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member