Orissa

Ganjam

CC/86/2018

Sri Tej Vikas Das, S/o. Late Mohant Sri Syama Sundar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

L and T Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Pramod Kumar Sabat

24 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANJAM, BERHAMPUR.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/86/2018
( Date of Filing : 26 Dec 2018 )
 
1. Sri Tej Vikas Das, S/o. Late Mohant Sri Syama Sundar Das
Aged about 26 years, Resident of At/Po. Padmanavpur, Ps. Digapahandi, Ganjam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. L and T Finance Limited
L and T Finance Limited, Registered Office - 7th Floor, Wing-A, Plot No. 4, Block BP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700091.
2. L and T Finance Limited
Corporate Office, City 2, Plot No. 177, Vidyanagari Marg, CST Road, Kalina Santa Cruz, East, Mumbai.
3. L and T Finance Limited, Branch Office
Kalpana Square, Near Panth Nivas, At/Po. Bhubneswar, Khurda.
4. L and T Finance Limited,
Office at Ajodya Nagar, At/Po. Berhampur, Ganjam.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr. Pramod Kumar Sabat, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 24 Mar 2021
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.03.2021

Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra,President:

 

            The case of the complainant in brief is summarized hereunder:

            That the father of the complainant had purchased a tractor for cultivation purpose in the name of S. Parsuram Reddy through finance from the O.Ps and the father of complainant is regularly paying the instalments towards the payment of loans until April 2016. In the meanwhile the father of the complainant died on 16.04.2016 as well as S.Parsuram Reddy the benami owner of the above said financed tractor in question also died in the month of November 2018. The O.Ps taking this opportunity rushed to the complainant and threatened to seize the vehicle and the complainant was not allowed to get the detail account of the statement and the total dues amount against the vehicle. Hence this complaint for an interim relief sought for a direction against the O.Ps not to seize the vehicle.

                        2. Notices were issued to the O.Ps. The authorized representative of the O.Ps present on 01.08.2019 submitted the original no objection certificate of the said vehicle and the form No.35 of the RTO which was issued in favour of the complainant by the O.Ps after one time settlement of the loan amount paid by the complainant in advance.

                        On 01.08.2019 the Authorized Signatory for the O.Ps filed a memo that they filed the original NOC (Cancellation of Endorsement) and RTO form 35 which was issued by the Opposite Parties in favour of the complainant and the same is received by the advocate for complainant on dated 1.8.2019. As thus on dated 4.2.2019 the advocate for complainant had also filed a not pressed memo as grounds stated therein. We perused the memo, verified the records and the memo is allowed.

            Hence we dropped this case as not pressed.

            Issue copy of order to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Karunakar Nayak]
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.