Orissa

Cuttak

CC/240/2012

Subrat Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

L & T Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.240/2012

Subrat Kumar Mohanty,

S/o: Manoj Kumar Mohanty,

At/PO:Paradeepgarh,P.S:Paradeep Lock,

Dist:Jagatsisnghpur.                                                                  ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        L & T Finance Ltd.,

“Spanco House”, Plot No.322,322/1,

Bs. Deoshi Marg,Deonar,

Mumbai-400088,Maharastra.

 

2.         Branch Manager, L & T Finance Ltd.,

2^nd Floor No.438/17,Jayadev Nagar,

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda..

 

3.         R.T.O,Kendrapara.                                                                   ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    29.09.2012

Date of Order:  23.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.C.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2 :         Mr.N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3:                         None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                               

            Case of the complainant  as it appears from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a vehicle in order to earn his livelihood and maintain his family under self-employment scheme and had availed finance from the O.Ps for the same.  O.P No.2 had sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.14,34,000/- in the month of April,2011 and an agreement was executed for the said purpose.  The instalment payment was effective from 5.5.2011 till 5.1.2015 vide loan account no.OCV017008R1100347798.  The complainant continued to repay through cheque of Rs.40,152/- x 17 i.e., a sum of Rs.5,50,916/- and a sum of Rs.1,10,200/- by cash.  Thus, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.6,61,116/- to the O.Ps/Financier.  The complainant admits to have defaulted in paying a sum of Rs.21,468/ due to non-plying of his vehicle for mining problem and his last payment was on 31.7.12 to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.  He had written letter to the Financier/O.Ps seeking 8 to 10 months time for repayment of the balance E.M.Is at easy instalments @ Rs.20,000/-.  He had also approached the O.Ps for disclosing him the rate of interest and to supply the agreement copy but the O.Ps had not cooperated with him in this regard.  The complainant has disputed the value of Rs.1,00,000/-  and IPO worth of Rs.100/- which was paid on the C.C.  Thus, he has filed this case seeking direction to the O.Ps to disclose the rate of interest and refix the E.M.Is on reduction principal and to enable him with easy instalments @ Rs.20,000/- per E.M.I and also not to seize or not to take any coercive action.

            He has filed certain copies of documents in order to establish his case.

2.         On the other hand, O.Ps No.1 & 2 have conjointly filed their written version wherein they have stated that the matter should have been referred to the Arbitration and thus this Commission lacks jurisdiction.  They have also submitted that they were not deficient in their service towards the complainant and that the complainant is using the vehicle for commercial purposes and thus he is not a consumer.  They admit about the loan given by them to the complainant in order to enable him to purchase his vehicle and about the E.M.Is.  According to them, the complainant started paying instalments with a delay upto the extent of 205 days and thereafter became irregular which reached NPA stage from June,2012.  The complainant had paid only 10 instalments and the last instalment was paid by him on 30.9.12.  The O.Ps have relied upon a catena of decisions which they have mentioned in their written version which are: AIR 2002 Supreme Courtm2402 of Hon’ble Supreme Court,Eicher Motors Ltd. Vrs. Dilip Chandra Kant Vaidya and others reported in National Commission Consumer Law Cases at page-439, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works V. PSG Industrial Institute, cited in 1995-AIR-SC-1428.  Thus, they have requested to dismiss the case of the complainant it being not maintainable.

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

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

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the O.Ps were deficient in their service towards the complainant?

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

Issues no.1 & 2.

            Issues no.2 & 3 being the pertinent issues are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly the complainant had purchased his vehicle by obtaining loan from the O.Ps and had agreed to repay the loan alongwith interest as per the agreement schedule and the E.M.Is.  It is also admitted that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.Ps in this regard.  Copies of documents as filed from either sides go to show that infact the complainant was a defaulter in paying the E.M.Is and the complainant has stated here in this case seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to refix and reschedule the E.M.Is and term of the agreement.  The Consumer Protection Act does not provide any provision enabling the complainant to get the agreement as entered into by him with the O.Ps, to reschedule and refix it.  Thus, this Commission cannot pass any such direction having no jurisdiction to that effect.  When the complainant was a defaulter, the O.Ps cannot be said to be deficient in their service towards the complainant and the case as filed by the complainant can never be said to be maintainable.

Issue No.3.

            From the above discussions, it is noticed that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                             ORDER

            The case of the complainant is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any case.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 23^rd day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member.