PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                      CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 6/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Santosh Kumar Pradhan,

S/O-Goura Chandra Pradhan,

R/O-Kharlikani, Sikachhida, Bolangir,

Po/Ps-Bolangir,

Dist-Bolangir-767001                                          .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

L & T Finance Service, Sambalpur Branch,

Budharaja, PO-Budharaja, PS-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004.                                                         ....……….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Sri. P.K. Mishra & Associates
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. A.K. Sahoo & Associates

Date of Filing:11.01.2023,  Date of Hearing :09.04.2024,  Date of Judgement :13.05.2024

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a Swaraj 735 FE Tractor bearing No. OD-03T-6594 availing a loan from O.P. for Rs. 4,70,000/- and gave down payment of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Vide customer ID No. 1822020 on 28.06.2019 finance was made. The monthly installment was fixed at Rs. 13,300/- in 48 installments. Till May, 2022 the Complainant paid Rs. 4,52,000/- total 34 installments and due to Covid-19 the instalment extended to 54 months instead 48 months. The last day of payment was fixed to 05.01.2024.

On 11.05.2022 Sahil Bag, Collection agent of the O.P. took away the tractor forcibly without furnishing seizure list or prior notice. In January 2022 and also April 2022 payment of installment made to Sahil Bag as a matter of practice. The collection agent has not granted receipt for the said months. After repossession of the vehicle complainant visited the office of O.P. and requested for supply of information, account statement etc. Complainant got the account statement at Branch office, Bhawanipatna and to-wards principal Rs. 2,86,378.20P. paid instenest of Rs. 1,65,821.80P totally Rs. 4,52,200/- to the O.P. The repossession of vehicle is illegal. The Complainant is ready to re-pay the 20 nos. of balance installments. The O.P. is deficient in service. The vehicle was repossessed at village Chiklabahal within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

2. The O.P. submitted that the Complainant availed financial assistance of Rs. 4,70,000/- to-wards purchase of Swaraj PTL 735FE tractor No. OD-03T 6594 and entered into hypothecation agreement No. OKG002016 F 1901387286. Monthly installment of Rs. 13,300/- was fixed for 48 months. Due to Covid 19 moratorium period six months was given and tenure extended to 54 EMI amounting to Rs. 5,11,992.50P. The Complainant was irregular in payment. For non-payment the O.P. was compelled to take repossession of the vehicle following due procedure pre-sale notice was given and ultimately on 27.05.2022 auction sale made. There is no deficiency in service of O.P. and denied the allegation of receipt of payment for the month of Jan-2022 and April-2022.
3. Perused the documents filed by both the parties. It is the admitted case of both the parties that Rs. 4,70,000/- finance was made by O.P. for the tractor bearing No. OD-03T-6594 and due to Covid-19 situation moratorium period 6 months was given to the Complainant. Perused the account statement and it reveals that there is irregularity in payment of the installments. Till 28.06.2020 installments were cleared up. Thereafter upto 5^th July 2021 there was outstanding against the Complainant and on 5^th July 2021 an amount of Rs. 64,107.59P was lying outstanding as arrears.

The allegation of the Complainant is that repossession of the vehicle was made on 11.05.2022 and the O.P. is silent on the matter and not given any reply. The O.P. has filed only copy of loan agreement, recall notice dated 07.03.2023, statement of account, copy of repossession information to police station with postal receipts.

After going through the contention of both the parties the following issues are framed:

ISSUES

1. Whether the O.P. followed due procedures for repossession of the vehicle No. OD-03T-6594?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1:- Whether the O.P. followed due procedures for repossession of the vehicle No. OD-03T-6594?

The Complainant alleged that repossession of the vehicle was made on 11.05.2022 without following due procedures. The O.P. in its written version is totally silent which amounts to admission of the O.P. In the contrary the O.P. submitted pre-repossession notice to police station, Balangir dated 17.05.2022 and postal receipt dated 17.05.2022. It implies repossession was made on 11.05.2022 and to patch up the lacuna pre-repossession notice was given to police Station. The O.P. has not filed any documents to show that Complainant has received the loan recall notice dated 07.03.2022. Secondly, the O.P. has not filed the seizure list and by whom it was repossessed with witnesses. Thirdly the O.P. has not submitted any documents to prove that auction sale was made following due procedures along with details of participants and notice to the borrower. Fourthly after post auction sale no any notice has been served to the Complainant about the sale proceeds of the vehicle.

The Complainant stated that from Bhawanipatna office account statement and other documents were collected.

The Complainant submitted citations 2007(1) OLR(CSR)-62 of our hon’ble State Commission, 2007(1) crimes 407(Sc) and Civil Appeal No. 9711 of 2011 of hon’ble Supreme Court.

The country is governed by rules of Law and repossession of vehicles/recovery of money should not be barbaric. No doubt, the O.P. has every right to recover the loan outstanding through legal means and procedures established by law. In the present case the O.P. failed to establish that due procedure has been followed for repossession of vehicle No. OD-03T-6594. The O.P. by supressing material documents not only deficient in its service but also it amounts to unfair trade practice.

The issue is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Issue No.2:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

As discussed Supra the O.P. repossessed the vehicle by unfair means and accordingly the Complainant is entitled for relief. The Complainant not only sustained financial loss but also lost his livelihood. The Complainant submitted that Rs. 4,52,000/- has been paid to the O.P. to-wards principal and interest. Rs. 1,60,000/- margin money has been deposited at the time of purchase of vehicle. In other hand the O.P. submitted that auction was made on 27.05.2022. The O.P. neither deposited the auction sale amount on 27.05.2022 nor on 28.05.2022. This proves the financial irregularity of the O.P. On 16.06.2022 RS. 2,25,614.30P has been adjusted. The O.P. not explained why on 27.05.2022 or 28.05.2022 not deposited the auction sale amount and the amount received from auction bidder. To supress the auction sale facts details not submitted by O.P.

Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case following order is passed:

ORDER

The Complainant is allowed on contest against the O.P. the O.P. is directed to refund the deposits made by Complainant for Rs. 4,52,200/- along with margin money amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- with 12% interest per annum w.e.f. 11.05.2022. The O.P. is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and legal expenses of Rs. 25,000/- within one month of this order. In case of non-payment the entire amount will cover 14% interest P.A. till realisation.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13^th day of May, 2024.      

Supply free copies to the parties.