Orissa

Cuttak

CC/164/2016

Shasank Sekhar Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S Satapathy & asssociates

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.164/2016

Shasanka Sekhar Mallick,

S/O:Adhar Mallick,At:Rambha,

PO:Postala,P.S:Govindpur,Dist:Cuttack.

At present C/O:Mamata Panda,

At:Balisahi, near Shiva Temple,

P.O/PS:Madhupatna,City/Dist.:Cuttack.                                    ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Managing Director,HDFC Bank Post Box No.399,

Annasalai,PO:Chennai,Pin-600002,Tamilnadu.

 

2.        The Regional Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Trishna Arcade,Janpath,Bhubaneswar,

Khurda,PIN-751001.

 

3.       The Branch Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack.                                                 ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    14.12.2016

Date of Order:   11.10.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.Satpathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :         Mr. N.K.Dash,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 Hero Maestro Scooty bearing Regd. No.OD-05J-6530 by availing loan of Rs.40,000/- from the O.P Bank.  He had agreed to repay the said loan @ Rs.1741/- per month.  After availing the loan he started repaying the monthly instalments with effect from 27.9.14  but in the year 2015, he became sick and bedridden for which he could not pay the E.M.Is regularly and thereby became a defaulter.  But since January2016 the complainant was regularly paying the monthly instalments without any default upto October,2016.  On 21.11.16 at about 10 A.M while the brother of the complainant was going with the said scooty near Kaliaboda of Shikharpur, the henchmen of the O.Ps took away the said scooty from the brother of complainant and the fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on 3.12.16 and thereafter he had gone to the office of O.Ps where he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.42,961/- after which the vehicle will be released in his favour.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- to him towards his mental agony and harassment and also for the  inconvenience as caused to him. He has also prayed for to any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version wherein they admit about the loan as advanced by them to the complainant for purchasing the scooty.  But according to them, the complainant had suppressed material facts and has not approached with clean hands.  They have stated in their written version that the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.62,676/- in 36 number of monthly instalments.  The complainant became a defaulter for which in this context the O.Ps have relied upon a pertinent decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bharathi Knitting Company Vrs. DHL Waorldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein it is held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by it’s terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances in which he had signed the contract.  They have also relied upon decisions of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Karnataka State Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Sheela S.Kotecha in R.P.No.458 of 2005 decided on 6.9.2009, In the case of Managing Director,Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Others Vs Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde (Civil Appeal no.7189 of 2002 decided on 9.7.2010, in the case of Rashpal Singh Bahia & Others Vs Surinder Kaur and Others 2008(2) Civil Forum Cases 778(P&H) and in the case of Lt col S.K Bhatia Vs Punjab Financial Corpn,II(2001) CPJ 40(NC) wherein it is held that since no violation of agreement by Financial Corporation had been alleged the petitioner cannot take umbrage under deficiency of service.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, the complainant by not paying the monthly instalments regularly became a defaulter and thereby had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement as entered into with them.  Accordingly, they had repossessed the vehicle for which they had prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with cost.

            They have also filed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.

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

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

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

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

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues issue no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration.

It is admitted that the complainant had obtained finance from the O.Ps in order to purchase one Hero Maestro scooty bearing Regd. No.OD-05J-6530.  He had availed loan of Rs.40,000/- from the O.Ps and had agreed to repay the said loan in a monthly instalment @ Rs.1741/- starting from 27.9.14.  He also admits to have been a defaulter in the year 2015.  When the complainant became a defaulter, it is definitely breach of the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement as entered into by the complainant with the O.Ps.  Thus, when the complainant became defaulter and could not pay the arrear dues to the O.Ps, they had repossessed the scooty for which they had advanced the loan.  Thus, this Commission do not find the O.Ps to be deficient in their service.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issue no.i & iii.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and that he is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

            Case is dismissed on contest 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 11^th  day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                          Member