Orissa

Cuttak

CC/76/2021

Nasiruddin Mohamad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

18 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.76/2021

 

Nasiruddidn Mohamad,

S/O:Tahir Mohamad,

AtKanta Baria,PO:Neulapur,

P.S:Dharmasals,Dist:Jajpur,

At present C/o: Rashid Mohamed,

At:Kesharpur,Mohanty Lane,

P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Mangalabag,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753001.                                                      ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

At:Nirmal Plaza,A/1,2^nd Floor,Foroest Park,

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khorda.

 

2.        MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,TC Plaza,Chborda Byepass Square,

Jajpur Road,Dist:Jajpur-755019..

 

3.       MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

At:Sumitra Plaza,3^rd Floor,

At/PS:Badambadi,Town/Dist:Cuttack-753012.

 

4.       R.T.O,Chandikhol,Dist:Jajpur.                                                  ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri DebasishNayak,President.

                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     19.04.2021

Date of Order:   18.11.2022

 

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

For the O.Ps 1,3 & 4 :                       None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                     

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had purchased a truck by obtaining finance to the tune of Rs.5,61,374/- from the O.Ps and his loan agreement no. was PG/0163/R/18/0000074.  The loan was to be repaid by the complainant in monthly instalments with effect from 20.9.19 to 20.3.2024.  The complainant had paid for the insurance and road tax of his said truck. The cost of his truck was of Rs.7,62,000/- having Regd. No.OR-09K-3693.  The complainant admits that he had defaulted in paying the E.MIs during the Covid pandemic period but without having a settlement with him, the O.Ps had forcibly repossessed his truck a while it was plying  Bandalo,Tangi of Cuttack on 11.4.21 at about 10 A.M.  Though he had approached the O.Ps and had agreed to be paying one of the E.M.Is and wanted to take his vehicle, they have not agreed for which he has filed this case claiming compensation from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- , a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of his social prestige,Rs.50,000/- as compensation for practice of  unfair trade & Rs.50,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  Thus, in total he had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the O.Ps in this case.

            The complainant has filed copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, on the petition of the complainant, O.P no.2 has been deleted but rest of the three O.Ps have not contested this case for which they have been set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps & if there was practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

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

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

Admittedly, there was loan agreement in-between the financier and the complainant.  There was E.M.Is fixed, by virtue of which the complainant was to repay the loan as availed by him from the O.Ps. There was loan agreement executed by the complainant and when he himself admits to have defaulted in making payment of the same and when the complainant has not also filed any regulation/circulation of the Govt. in order to support his plea of Covid; the complainant as well as the O.Ps are bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and breach of it by the complainant will definitely entitle the O.Ps to repossess the financed truck of the complainant.  So when the complainant had defaulted, the O.Ps had repossessed the truck as per law for which they have financed and this Commission finds no deficiency in service to that aspect nor can it be said here that there was any practice of unfair trade.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Points no.i & iii.

From the aforesaid discussions, it can never be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.   Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 18^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                            Member