DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 10th day of September, 2019
C.D Case No. 90 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Subasa Chandra Sahoo
S/o Padmanav Sahoo
Vill: Bajarapur,
Po: Baliapal,
Ps: Bansada,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. MAGMA FINCROP LIMITED, Balasore
At/Po: Shadev Khunta,
Dist: Balasore
2. MAGMA FINCROP LIMITED, Bhubaneswar
At/Po: Bhubaneswar,
Dist: Khordha
3. MAGMA FINCROP LIMITED,
Regd Office- 24, Park Street, Kolkata- 700016
4. MAGMA FINCROP LIMITED,
5th Floor, Block- 4A, Ecospace Business Park, Newtown,
Rajarhat, Kolkata- 700156
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri K. C. Rath, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps: Sri D. Nayak & Others, Adv
Date of hearing: 13.08.2019
Date of order: 10.09.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps to the effect that there was an agreement executed between the complainant and OP Company. The allegation is that the OP finance company has committed gross deficiency in service by not properly rescheduling EMI dues of the complainant. In fact the OP finance company has calculated wrongly and manipulated the same installment wise. The complainant incurred the loan for earning his livelihood and for his self employment had taken a vehicle i.e. tractor being financed by the OP finance company i.e. MAGMA FINCROP Ltd. vide loan-cum hypothecation agreement No. HO/G/0064/10/000075 dt. 22 July 2011. The registration certificate of the above vehicle is annexed here with as Annexure- 1. The OP company finance an amount of Rs 3,29,259/- (Three laks twenty-nine thousands two hundred fifty nine rupees) in favour of the complainant thereafter total received amount including the interest amount and total amount is payable by the complainant is of Rs 5,73,060/- (Five lakhs seventy-three thousands sixty rupees) in 60 numbers of EMIs, out of which the 1st EMIs is Rs 9,551/-. After completion of all the formalities the complainant plied the vehicle and paid the EMI dues to the OP Company quite regularly. The EMI started from 20.08.2011 and the last due date is 18.08.2016. The present complainant deposit all the amounts. Total installments are 60 but the O.Ps received more than required installments. Finally the complainant requested the OP No. 2 that he has deposited more than required installments but the O.Ps did not listen rather the OP finance company threatened to seize the tractor vehicle as soon as possible. The complainant has applied statement regarding installments after giving Rs 500/- and after verifying the same it clearly reveals that receipt of installments and the statement are not same. It creates difference between them. The payment made by the complainant which creates differences are as follows. But actually the complainant deposited all the installments.
Date Amount
1. 27.11.2014 Rs 10,000/-
2. 14.01.2015 Rs 10,061/-
3. 07.02.2015 Rs 10,051/-
4. 19.06.2015 Rs 19,110/-
5. 12.02.2016 Rs 20,300/-
6. 29.04.2016 Rs 20,000/-
7. 29.05.2016 Rs 10,200/-
In dt. 27.11.2014 the complainant had deposited Rs 10,000/- but the statement shows Rs 9,600/-. Similarly on dt. 14.01.2015 the complainant had deposited Rs 10,061/- but the statement shows Rs 9,551/-. Similarly on dt. 07.02.2015 the complainant had deposited Rs 10,051/- but the statement shows Rs 9,551/-. On dt. 19.06.2015 the complainant had deposited Rs 19,110/- but the statement shows Rs 18,110/-. On dt. 12.02.2016 the complainant had deposited Rs 20,300/- but the statement shows Rs 19,102/-. On dt. 29.04.2016 the complainant had deposited Rs 20,000/- but the statement shows Rs 18,600/-. On 29.05.2016 the complainant had deposited Rs 10,200/- but the statement shows Rs 9,551/-. The complainant had great faith upon the OP Insurance Company. Most of the receipt are not visible, due to oblique the OP Insurance Company cheated to the complainant. The copy of the statement and money receipt are filed here with and marks as Annexure- 2 series. The complainant is a poor rustic villager and taking the advantage with oblique motive harass the present complainant. The collection agent has committed gross illegality which violates the natural justice. The present complainant has given and final installments but the O.Ps with oblique motive demanded again and again. The complainant Proposal No. PG/0064/A/10/000022 and Reference No. MFL/A/0716/000425. The O.Ps gave reminder for payment of overdue installments & penalty charges against hire purchase finance agreement are:-
SI No. Particulars Amount (Rs)
1. Overdue Installments Rs 28,536.51/-
2. Overdue Interest Rs 10,939/-
3. Miscellaneous Charges Rs 5,714/-
Total outstanding amount Rs 5,189.51/-
Copy of the reminder notice dt. 08.07.2016 in annexed here with as Annexure- 3.
Hence the complainant has sought for the following reliefs.
1. The O.Ps be directed to reschedule the loan amount of the complainant.
2. The O.Ps be directed to correct the statement and to pay Rs 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards his mental agony and harassment and to delete overdue interest and miscellaneous Charges and penalty charges.
3. The O.ps be directed to pay Rs 10,000/- towards the cost of the filing of the case.
Documents filed on behalf of the complainant.
1. Registration certificate particulars RA 01920096- 1 sheet (Annexure- 1).
2. Proposal No. PG/0064/A/10/000022- 3 sheets (Annexure- 2).
3. Cash receipt- 3 sheets.
4. Reference No. MFL/A/0716/000425- 1 sheet (Annexure- 3).
5. Affidavit before notary public Bhadrak- 1 sheet.
The O.Ps have appeared on behalf of the concerned advocate and filed their written version analogously that the answering O.Ps deny and dispute all the contentions, claims, demands, allegations, averments, imputations and insinuations of the complainant against the answering O.Ps. The O.Ps have challenged the jurisdiction of this case. The O.Ps have challenged of the maintainability of this case. The fact is that the transaction between the parties is a contract where both parties have to perform their part of obligation. As per the contact, the cost of the vehicle is Rs 5,07,020/- out of which an initial amount of Rs 3,29,259/- was financed by the OP. The complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs 2,43,801/- towards the finance charges. Hence complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs 5,73,060/- towards the contract value. The said contract value amount was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments which is to be paid before 20.07.2016. The complainant has agreed to pay the installments in a stipulated time failing which complainant has further agreed to pay the delayed payment charges on the respective installment amount. These O.Ps have performed their part of obligation by sanctioning loan to the complainant and now it is his turn to perform his part of obligation by repaying the loan dues as per agreement. Admittedly the complainant is a chronic defaulter in repaying the loan dues as has been evident from the complaint of the complaint petition. Time is the essence of contract of this nature which both parties are expected to observe. But the complainant never made payment of the installments as per agreed terms and conditions for which a huge amount of loan remained unpaid and for which the O.Ps finding no other option, but to seize the vehicle as per terms and conditions as agreed upon by the parties in the hire purchase agreement. In this regard, reference may be taken of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704, whereby it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by its terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract.
Replying to the Para No. 3 & 4 of the complaint the O.Ps have submitted that the cost of the vehicle is Rs 5,07,020/- out of which an initial amount of Rs 3,29,259/- was financed by the OP. The complainant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs 2,43,801/- towards the finance charges. Hence complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs 5,73,060/- towards the contract value. The said contract value amount was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments which is to be paid before 20.07.2016. The complainant has agreed to pay the installments in a stipulated time failing which complainant has further agreed to pay the delayed payment charges on the respective installment amount. These O.Ps have performed their part of obligation by sanctioning loan to the complainant and now it is his turn to perform his part of obligation by repaying the loan dues as per agreement. The contents of the Para 5 & 6 of the complaint are denied as false. It is evident from the attached account statement that till date a huge amount is pending outstanding against the complainant. In reply to Para 8 of the complaint it is submitted that as on 21.09.2016 an amount of Rs 48,578/- is showing outstanding in the account of the complainant. Hence the statement filed by the complainant is false and fabricated. It is submitted that the complainant has not come with clean hands before the Forum and has suppressed all the relevant facts. The complainant has never suffered any financial loss or otherwise due to his own malicious deeds and mischievous attitude for which these O.Ps can in no way be held responsible. That, these O.Ps have committed no deficiency of service and therefore there is no reason for the complainant to undergo any physical, financial and mental loss and agony attributable to these O.Ps. Extending financial help to a person in need and subsequent legal step for recovery cannot be construed as deficiency of service. These O.Ps have committed no deficiency of service and therefore there is no reason for the complainant to undergo any physical, financial and mental loss and agony attributable to these O.Ps. Extending financial help to a person in need and subsequent legal step for recovery cannot be construed as deficiency of service. The complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him and this case is liable to be dismissed or merit with exemplary cost, for filing such a frivolous and vexatious complaint. Hence the O.Ps have prayed to dismiss the proceeding.
Documents relied upon of the O.Ps.
1. Xerox copy of an agreement (Award)- 8 sheets.
2. Cash receipt- 1 sheet.
3. Other documents- 2 sheets.
4. Proposal document- 1 sheet.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written versions filed by the complainant and the O.Ps as well as the documents filed by them. The complainant has alleged that the OP financing company committed gross deficiency in service by not properly rescheduling E.M.I dues of the complainant. In fact, the OP finance company has calculated wrongly and manipulate the same installment wise. The OP company financed an amount of Rs 3,29,259/- in favour of the complainant. The total received amount including the interest is Rs 5,73,060/- in 60 numbers of EMIs. After completion of all formalities the complainant plied the vehicle and paid the EMI dues to the OP company quite regularly. The EMI was stated from 20.08.2011 and the last due date is 18.08.2016. The complainant requested the OP No. 2 is that he has already deposited required EMIs deposited and more than required installments but the O.Ps did not receive rather the OP financed company to seize the tractor as soon as possible. The complainant applied for the statement of accounts and received the same. After verification of the same is clearly reveal that the receipt of installments and the statement are not sent. It created difference between them. The payment sheet has already been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint. For example on 27.11.2014 the complainant deposited Rs 10,000/- but the statement shows that Rs 9,600/-. On 14.11.2015 the complainant deposited Rs 10,061/- but the statement was show that Rs 9,551/-. Similarly the payment sheet which has been described in the complaint show that there are dissimilarities between the payment sheet and the statement of accounts. These facts have been clearly mention the Annexure- 2 & 3. The O.Ps have failed to satisfactory counter in this regard. After strict scrutiny we have found that the O.Ps have caused serious deficiency in service and dishonest trade practice with regard to the EMIs paid by the complainant. The O.Ps, although filed their written version but unable to substantiate their case by submitting documentary evidence. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed on part against the O.Ps. The O.Ps be directed to reschedule the loan amount of the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to make correction and rectification of the statement of accounts. They have been further directed to pay Rs 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment. The O.Ps are further directed to rectify the overdue interest which has been imposed upon the complainant. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the litigation
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 10th September, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
