SRI B. K. DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in services in respect threatening of illegal seizure of complainant’s transport vehicle and illegal demand of financed amount are the allegation arrayed the Opp-parties.
Complainant, in a nutshell reveals that complainant to maintain his live hood purchased one Tata Truck(Model-2513) bearing Regd. No.Or-29-5832 being financed by the OPP>parties. It was inter-alia agreed between the parties that Rs. 14,000.00 (rupees Fourteen Lakhs)only will be financed against the total cost of 14,84,038/-. The loan advanced by the ops will be cleared within 46 monthly installments, commencing from, March,2011 and the complainant has to pay @Rs.38,494/- per month as monthly installments including the interest. After availing the finance complainant was paying his dues regularly till June,2011. Since June,2011 the transport business related to iron or from different mines to paradeep Port could not run up to the expectation for different reasons for which the complainant default in making payment of agreed EMI’s and dues to Opp. Parties against the finance of the vehicle. On the above circumstances, complainant made an application to the OPP. Parties on dt.31.03.2013 requesting to reduce the EMI’s to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and to rephrase the payment of defaulted EMI’s by spreading fraction of defaulted EMI’s on each subsequent months. But the OPP. Parties till did not consider the request of rephasement of EMI’s which were addressed to the Opp parties under compulsion. As complainant has paid Rs. 13,17,094/- against the finance amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- and ready to pay the balance amount .But the Ops without considering the circumstances threatening to seize the vehicle. The last cause of action of the instant case arose on dt.30.05.2014 when the complainant gave threat to effect the seizure. Complainant finding no other alternatives filed this complainant before this Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to reschedule the EMI’s and not to seize the vehicle bearing NO. OR-29-5832 along with cost of Litigation.
Being noticed Opp-parties appeared through their Ld. Counsel and field written version into the dispute challenging the complainant’s status as a ‘Consumer’ citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmi Engineering Works-Vrs-PSG Industries Institute reported in A.I.R. 1995 SC 1428 and submitting the facts, it is stated that a TATA LPT truck was financed complainant on hypothecation basis and on execution of an agreement between the parties.RS.14 lakhs was financed a condition that complainant will pay Rs.38,494/- as EMI”s including interest and the said EMI’s are to be paid within 46 monthly installments . ON non-payment of EMI’s dues in time penal interest rate 36 percent will be charged further in case of default the borrower has to surrender the vehicle before the OP-Financer. It is also revealed from the written version that as per the agreement executed between the parties, If any dispute arsies same shall be settled through Arbitration. When the complainant failed to repay his dues legal notices were issued demanding the loan outstanding dues. Complainant did not respond to the legal notice accordingly an Arbitration was filed bearing No.265/2013 which was disposed on dt.29.04.13 in favour of the Ops(which is marked as Annexure-B series). This fact is not disclosed by the present complainant in his complaint petition. The detail description of the financed vehicle is marked as Annexure-A. The Ops in their Para wise reply submit that an outstanding of RS.5,35,899/- is pending on the complainant till date and the statement of an account is marked as Annexure-C. The Ops concludes their written version by submitting that no application for rephasement is presented before the Ops by the complainant-borrower.
Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. Perused the Annexure and documents filed by the parties. It is an admitted fact that complainant availed a finance from the ops to the tune of RS.14.00 lakhs on execution of an agreement with specific terms and conditions. The vehicle is TATA LPT Model truck bearing Regd. No.OR-29-5832. It is further admitted that complainant –borrower was/is a defaulter for different reasons. Now the question left before this Forum is to decide whether any direction can be issued to the Ops for reschedule of EMI’s as per the complaint petition. It is admitted fact that for finance of the case vehicle an agreement is presented by OP-financer as Annexure-A. The agreement between the parties does not speak a single sentence that the OP-financer is binding to consider the request of the complainant to reschedule the EMI’s for whatsoever the reason. The facts narrated in the complaint petition for reschedule EMI’s may be correct either of the parties cannot go beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement unilaterally. Complainant also takes the plea that other financing company have rescheduled the EMI’s on such condition. But this plea cannot be imposed on the present OP’s by a direction. It is the settled principle of law that no court/Forum/quasi judicial authorities can intervene on terms and conditions of an agreement which is in force until it opposes the public policy. Thus the sole grievance of complainant for reschedule of EMI’s cannot be defined as deficiency in services as per the C.P.Act.1986. Hence it is the will and sympathy of the OP-Financer to consider the request of complainant to reschedule the EMI’s. No one can force the financer to rescheduled the EMI’s.
Complainant on his complaint petition states that till 02.05.2014 he has paid Rs. 13,17,094/-.On the other land OP-financer filed a statement of loan account of the complainant till dt.03.11.2014 which shows that an outstanding of Rs.5,36,967/- is pending on the complainant-borrower. According to us this is an accounting procedure and the parties are obliged to settle the accounts as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. As we have discussed earlier regarding legal position of complainant-borrower and admittedly the borrower is a defaulter on repayment of EMI’s .so the loan accounts of the complainant to be settle as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation-cum-loan agreement bearing No.OCVO17008R1100324880. So far the Order No.2 dt.11.06.2014 and Order No.12 dt.16.01.15 are concerned where an interim directions were issued to the Ops not to seize the vehicle is hereby vacated and the amounts if any paid by the complainant to the OP-financer against the said loan during pendency of the proceeding, said amounts are to be adjusted during settlement of the loan account of the case vehicle.
The question of maintainability and award of Arbitration as raised by the Ops need not require any elaborate discussion.
O R D E R
Having observations reflected above the complainant is dismissed on merit.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court, this the 9th day of June,2015.
