C.C. No.422/2022

Shakti Prasad Nayak,

S/o. Sri Narayan Nayak,

At- Chikinia,

P.O.- Tarapur,

P.S.- Raghunathpur,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.……… Complainant

​

1. Indusind Bank Ltd.

Consumer Finance Division,

Old No.115, 116, New No.34,

G.N. Chetty Road, T. Nagar,

Chennai- 600017.

2. Branch Manager, 

Indusind bank Ltd., Bhubaneswar,

78, Kharavel Nagar,

Dist.- Khordha.

3. Branch Manager,

Indusind Bank Ltd., Cuttack Branch,

At- CFD Umang Plaza,

Bajrakabati Road,

Cuttack- 753001.…..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. J. Pattnaik & Associates

For Opposite Parties………..Mr. U.C. Sethi & Associates

ORDER BY HON’BLE MEMBER- MRS. M. SWAIN:

                                                                                                      JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to provide a copy of the loan agreement with up to date SOA, settlement of financial dispute under the OTS scheme, if any and pay compensation Rs.1,05,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.1,00,000/- deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- mental agony and Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses”.

            Brief fact of the case is that in order to maintain his livelihood complainant purchased MAHINDRA 415 BP LARGE TYPE OIB PCM REVERSE CRPTO Agricultural Tractor with financial assistance from Indusind Bank, Bhubaneswar who is opposite party No.2 with a loan of Rs.5,08,445/- during August, 2018. The vehicle which is an agricultural tractor is registered with R.T.O., Jagatsinghpur bearing Regd. No.OD-21-K8912 having Chassis No.MBNAAAVAPJRA 00751 and Engine No.RJA4YBA 0916. The complainant execute loan agreement with opposite parties vide loan agreement No.OCC00214T on 28.8.2018 and will have to repay the sum of Rs.7,41,570/- in 54 monthly installments @ 13,733/- per EMI. As on 31.3.2022 complainant paid Rs.5,41,900/- to the opposite parties for realization of loan. In spite of several request of complainant the opposite parties has not supplied loan agreement, statement of accounts which amounts to monopolistic approach arbitrary action as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  On 21.10.2022 the opposite parties informed that Rs.2,48,172/- was pending for which it has been proposed to intimate arbitration proceedings after that complainant met opposite parties for short out the issues amicable settlement of loan outstanding prior to any decision causes the complainant was served with a notice issued in SRR/ACP No.1667/2022, along with the petition U/s.17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, registered as I.A.No.1/2022, calling upon him to attend the hearing on 25.11.2022 at Chennai (Tamilnadu).

            By initiating Arbitration proceeding at Chennai, the opposite parties have intended to cause further harm to the complainant by taking repossession of the vehicle obtaining ex-parte order. For outstanding of Rs.2,48,172/- of the opposite party the opposite party attempt to repossess the hypothecated asset causing harass and humiliates a bonafide borrower rather the complainant want to one time settlement scheme of the opposite parties with the aim and objective of RBI under which the opposite parties financer is regulated, hence this complaint.

            Complainant cited following decision in support of his petition;

            “(2000) 5 SCC 294 (Skypack Couriers Ltd. -Vrs.- Tata Chemicals Ltd.) and (2019) 12 SCC 751 (Emar MGF Land Ltd.-Vrs.- Aftab Singh).  

            The opposite parties in heir written version stated as follows;

            The complainant intended to purchase a vehicle MAHINDRA 415 BP LARGE TYRE OIB PCM REVERSE CRPTO to sue the vehicle for the enhancement of his running group business. He had in due course approached to opposite party bank for  availing the requisite finance for the purchase of the said vehicle and after proper consideration opposite parties thereof agreed to finance an amount of Rs.5,08,445/- on 01.9.2017 to the complainant by way of a duly executed a hypothecation agreement to that effect vide loan agreement. But since his repayment track was not as per agreed terms and conditions of the loan agreement, resulting which the complainant became default. Hence as per the repayment schedule complainant has to pay the total agreement value sum of Rs.7,41,571/- including interest payable from 03.12.2018 to 03.3.2023 in 17 installments as per the repayment schedule and agreement copy issued to the complainant.

            Heard and go through the materials on the record. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the vehicle to maintain his livelihood hence complainant is a consumer as per Sec.2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  

            The opposite parties intimate the Arbitration process but final decision was not drawn by the Arbitrator for which Sec.100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 states that “the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”.  So the complainant can adjudicate in Consumer Commission. As the agreement tenure of the complainant had been completed in May, 2023 and complainant is ready to settle his liability of Rs.2,48,172/- in one time settlement and interested to keep the vehicle to maintain his livelihood, hence it is ordered that;

            The opposite parties are directed to settle the outstanding of complainant of Rs.2,48,172/- in one time settlement. The opposite parties shall deduct 2/3^rd of overdue charges and the complainant is directed to pay the outstanding dues within 45 days from date of passing of the order. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 11^th January,2024.