Orissa

StateCommission

A/556/2008

Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kali Prasad Mishra, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc.

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/556/2008
( Date of Filing : 17 Jul 2008 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 08/02/2008 in Case No. CD/93/2007 of District Koraput)
 
1. Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd.,
Opp. Raj Kumar College, Great Eastern Road, Raipur.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Kali Prasad Mishra,
S/o- Purna Chandra Mishra, At- Gadia Dhobi Street, Jeypore, Dist- Koraput.
2. Aman Associates,
Magma Leasinf Ltd., Main Road, Nabarangpur.
3. A.R. Real Esttae,
Magma Leasing Ltd., Op. Orvasi Lodge, Main Road, Jeypore.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 
Dated : 24 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

          Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant being impressed and induced by the advertisement, agreed to enter into a hire purchase financial scheme and the opposite parties agreed to refinance the vehicle DLS Indica V2 for Rs.1,50,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.3000/- towards agreement, Rs. 2000/- towards processing and documents

and Rs. 3000/- towards RC and insurance endorsement besides a down payment of Rs. 47,000/- but the opposite party no.1 did not release the finance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- at all. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times but since the opposite parties did not release the amount, this complaint was filed.

4.      The opposite party no.1 did not file written submission through his advocate. Opposite party no.3  filed written version contending that  O.P.No.3 does not have any link with the Financer and he has no knowledge about any transaction between the  complainant and O.Ps. 1 and 3. Moreover, he submitted that he has not received any amount from the complainant.

5.      After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned District Forum passed the impugned order and the operative portion of the impugned order is as follows :-

    “ Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the O.P.No.1 is directed to refund Rs.55000/- along with interest @12% per annum from 25.5.2007 till payment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation besides Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within four weeks from the date of dispatch of this order. However, no orders against other opposite parties.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him, appellant has  refunded the money by sending the Demand Draft, but it has not been received by the complainant. The opposite party refunded the money because the complainant has not arranged further finance. Learned District Forum ought to have considered that there is no negligence on the part of opposite party. He submitted that the interest @12% should be reduced as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken a view that interest @10% is in higher side.

7.      Considered the submissions. Perused the DFR including the impugned order. It is admitted fact that in order to purchase second hand vehicle for Rs. 1,50,000/- the complainant had approached opposite party no.1, who agreed to finance. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.3000/- towards agreement, Rs. 2000/- towards processing the documents and Rs. 3000/- towards RC and insurance endorsement besides Rs. 47,000/- towards down payment.

8.      It is not in dispute that opposite party no.1 has sent a D.D. of Rs.1,50,000/- but the same has not been received by the complainant. It is revealed from the learned District Forum Record that opposite party no.1 has sanctioned the same, but there is no reason why further amount was not advanced. Since the complainant remained silent in spite of acceptance of money, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party no.1.

9.      In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that interest is on higher side and we agree that 12% interest be reduced to 9% payable on the decreed amount and from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. The rest of the impugned order would remain unaltered. The payment must be made within 45 days by the opposite party, failing which the entire amount will be payable  with interest @18% per annum from the date of payment of Rs.47,000/- to the complainant.

10.    Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.     

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.