Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/71/2022

Bikash Chandra Sahani - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D Indusind bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.K.Naik

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                            JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs:

            “Direct the opposite parties to return the vehicle Mahindra Blazo 37 bearing No.OD-29-F-5337 belong to the complainant and the copy of the loan agreement and to receive the installments leaving other charges and to pay compensation of Rs.3,65,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the complainant case is that the complainant being an unemployed person availed a loan as against one Mahindra Blazo 37 bearing No.OD-29-F-5337 in the year 2018 from opposite parties for his livelyhood and maintenance of his family from the earning of the vehicle. The opposite parties seized the vehicle without any notice, without any justifiable reason and without taking the recourse of law, and without making proper inventory which amount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The opposite parties financed Rs.29,10,000/- and the interest charges Rs.12,72,853.28 paisa and insurance Rs.1,60,000/- and in total the repayable amount comes to Rs.43,42,856.28 paisa and which will be repaid in 70 monthly installments. The complainant also deposited margin money of Rs.3,14,000/-. Thereafter the opposite party used to collect the installment through cheques and cash as per the instruction of the opposite party. The complainant tough asked about the loan agreement, the opposite parties did not approved the same and assured to provide the same later on and never provide the same till date.

            On dt.08.3.2022 the opposite parties seized the vehicle at Manguli, the complainant deposited Rs.76,000/- and repossession charge Rs.8,000/- then the opposite parties release the vehicle, thereafter on dt.05.4.2022 the opposite party No.2 & 3 forcible seized the vehicle at Gopa Chhack, Kendrapara. Complainant contacted the opposite party No.3 and deposited Rs.75,000/- but the opposite parties has not released the vehicle, it is not out of place to mention here that the complainant has already paid Rs.25,80,394.79 paisa and due to poor business condition the complainant could not able to pay the rest installments and failed to pay two installments till repossession.

            The opposite parties have filed their written version stating as under;

            The complainant is not the owner of this vehicle as per law, and acting only as a ‘Registered owner’ in the RC particular of the vehicle during existence of the loan/hypothecation contract executed in between the O.P. bank and the complainant/borrower. Unless and until clearance of all the outstanding dues of the O.P. Bank, and up to obtain NOC for deletion of hypothecation from the O.P. Bank who is the ‘Lender’ and ‘Actual owner’ of the vehicle in dispute, the borrower cannot legal claim himself/herself as the real owner of the vehicle during loan tenure. As elaborately discussed with relevant case laws the complainant has availed this loan for incurring more profit out of the existing running commercial vehicle/transport business being the registered owner of multiple commercial vehicles in the group, as such the complainant is directly into the business earning profits. The O.P. Bank who is contractually authorized to take possession of the hypothecated vehicle in case of default made by the borrower as an alternative remedy available in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Furthermore, on regular interval of time in compliance to the contractual obligations the O.P. Bank used to send notices/reminders time and again which can be evident from the bank’s record. The contentions made by the complainant is not valid, having no cause of action because of taking possession the asset  on 05.4.2022 by the bank’s authorized agent, the complaint tactfully made a part payment Rs.75,000/- via electronic mode (by phone pay/UPI) and after that very cunningly narrating some concocted stories before this Commission. Mere apprehension of vehicle being sold, arises no cause of action to file a complaint against the O.P. Bank and the O.P. Bank being a commercial organization regulated under Banking Regulated Act 1949 follows so many procedure before sale life, notice to borrower and Co borrower, inviting valuation for approved valuator, conducting on line auctions, selection of bidders minimum 3 nos. sending final pre sale notices, paper advertisement and etc. It shall be taken into consideration that the cheques issued by complaints are continuously bounced about 20 times due to insufficient funds which can be understood from the statement of account. Hence the intention of the complainant being a commercial uses earning handsome money out of the vehicle but intentional avoiding for payment can easily be understood from the track record of the complainant. The complainant made a breach of contract by not adhering to the terms and conditions as agreed upon said loan agreement as agreed and made delay by not repaying the installments on the due dates in each month. The complainant issued the cheques are bounced due to insufficient of funds in his/her account. So the complainant is a regular defaulter.

            It is undisputed fact that the complainant has taken several loans and he has outstanding of Rs.1,48,536/- as against present vehicle. Taking into the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the complainant shall pay the 30% of the arrear EMIs within three weeks from the date of receipt of order and shall pay the regular EMI and rest of the pending EMIs is to be paid within a year. The opposite parties have repossessed the vehicle during the period when order dt.07.4.2022 was in force and has seized the vehicle without any permission from this Commission for which we direct the opposite parties not to take any charge for stock yard and repossession. Accordingly the consumer complaint is disposed of. No cost.

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 2^nd August, 2022.