Orissa

Cuttak

CC/26/2021

Shaikh Tahid Mohammad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

04 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.26/2021

                                Shaikh Tahid Mohammad,

S/O:Shaikh Kalim Mohammad,

Res. Of Charnagal,Islamabad,

P.S:Balichandrapur,Dist:Jajpur,

At present, C/o:Md. Ayub (Lal Bhai),

At:Sutahat,Near Champion Bakery,

P.O:Buxibazar,P.S:Lalbag,

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

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Branch Manager,

MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

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

Forest Park,Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khordha.

 

2.      MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,TC Plaza,Chorda Byepass Sqauare,

Jajpur Road,Dist:Jajpur.

                                               

3.        MAGMA Fincorp Ltd.,

At:Sumitra Plaza,3^rd Floor,

At/PS:Badambadi,

Town/Dist:Cuttack-753012.

 

4.        R.T.O,Cuttack,Dist:Cuttack.                                                         ... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    09.02.2021

Date of Order:  04.07.2022

 

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

For the O.Ps.               :          None.     

       

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

            Case of the complainant is that in order to earn his livelihood and for his self-employment he had availed a loan from the O.P No.2,Finance Company for purchasing of a Truck bearing Regd. No.OR-21-C-9050.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.12,41,000/- and the financed amount was Rs.9,23,641/-.  He had executed an agreement vide Agreement NO.PG/0163/R/18-0000034 for availing the loan.  But no other documents was supplied to the complainant except repayment schedule.  From the said repayment schedule, it is revealed that the complainant was to clear up the loan amount in 40  number of monthly instalments but due to Covid it was enhanced to 44 number of monthly EMI i.e. Rs.37,520/- each.   The last date of EMI was 20.2.23.  After completion of all the formalities, the complainant plied his vehicle and paid the EMI dues to the O.Ps regularly but due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not ply the vehicle and was thus defaulted in payment of the EMI dues.  The complainant intimated such difficulties to the O.P bank and they assured the complainant not to seize the vehicle.  But suddenly on 6.2.21 at about 12.15 p.m. at Bandalo area near Tangi of Cuttack, the O.Ps bank forcibly seized the vehicle of the complainant.  The complainant approached the O.P bank to release the vehicle on payment of Rs.30,000/- but they did not take any action in this aspect.  It is further alleged that the O.P bank without any notice had seized his vehicle forcibly, which violates the RBI guidelines.  Due to such action of the O.P bank, the complainant is suffering, his family members are almost starving and they are passing through miserable lives.  Hence, the complainant has filed the case for issuance of direction to the O.P,Finance Company to supply a copy of agreement, latest statement of accounts so also has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards the compensation for his mental agony and harassment as well as cost.

            The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove his case.

2.         O.P finance Company appeared but did not file any written version.  Hence they were set exparte.  Similarly O.P No.4 also did not appear and was set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

ii.         Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

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

Issue No.3.

            Issue no.3 being a pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            The complainant himself admits about the default of the monthly instalments by him.  He also requested the O.P/Finance Company to give him time in order to deposit the arrear EMIs.  This Commission vide its interim order dt.10.2.21 has directed for release of the seized vehicle on receiving up-to-date E.M.Is.  The complainant is silent about the present status of the vehicle.  The complainant has alleged that the O.Ps/Finance Company have violated the guidelines of the RBI but has not filed any document to appraise this Commission as to what were the guidelines/direction those which were violated by the O.Ps.  The O.P No.4 has no role to play in the present case.  In view of the above and in absence of any cogent evidence, this Commission cannot come to a conclusion that the O.Ps/Finance Company here in this case had committed any deficiency in service.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issues No.1 & 2.

            The complainant had purchased the vehicle by availing the loan from the O.Ps for earning his livelihood.  But when the vehicle was taken away from his possession, he had cause of action to file this case and the case is maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues are answered.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, it is noticed that the complainant has filed this case claiming copy of the loan agreement, latest statement of accounts from the O.Ps/Finance Company along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment besides the cost.  Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is of a considerate view to allow the claim of the complainant in part only.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps but in part and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.  The O.Ps 1,2 & 3 are directed to provide forthwith to supply a copy of agreement, latest statement of accounts to the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th day of July,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.

 

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President