Orissa

Cuttak

CC/55/2021

Smt Manini Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magma Fincorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

                                                            C.C.No.55/2021

                        Smt. Manini Sahoo,

W/O:Rajkishore Sahoo,

Res. Of Dhuligarh,Jajpur Road,

P.S:Jajpur Road,Dist:Jajpur.

At present C/o: Bagmirekha Mohapatra,

At:Kesharpur,Near Panda Hospital,

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

Town/Dist:Cuttack.                                                   ... Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       The Branch Manager,

Magma Fincorp. Ltd.,

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

Forest Park,Bhubaneswar,

                    Dist-Khurda

 

2.       Magma Fincorp. Ltd., 2^nd Floor,TC Plaza,Chorda Byepas Sqauare

Jajpur Road,Dist:Jajpur-755019.

 

3.       Magma Fincorp. Ltd.,

At:Sumitra Plaza,3^rd Floor,

                At/Ps-Badambadi,Town/Dist-Cuttack

 

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

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    15.03.2021

Date of Order:   09.09.2022

 

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

For the O.Ps no.1 to 3:       None.     

For the O.P No.4:               Self

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

                                                

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that for earning her livelihood and for her self-employment she had availed a loan from the O.Ps no.1 to 3 and owned a truck bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AN-5554.  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.12,50,000/-.  She had availed the loan to the tune of Rs.10,08,402/-.  There was a loan agreement between the complainant and O.Ps No.1 to 3 to that effect vide agreement no.PG/0163/R/17/0000052.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps No.1 to 3 had provided her only the repayment schedule but no other documents including the agreement copy was provided to her.  As per the repayment schedule, the loan was to be repaid in 33 number of monthly instalment @ Rs.30,706/- with effect from 10.10.18 to 10.6.23.  It is stated by the complainant that she was paying the E.M.Is regularly to the O.Ps No.1 to 3 but due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and self illness, she could not pay the instalments so also could not ply her vehicle.  Hence, she had requested the O.Ps No.1 to 3 to give time for payment of defaulted E.M.I dues and the O.Ps No.1 to 3 also assured the complainant not to seize the vehicle.  But the O.Ps No.1 to 3 all on a sudden on 6.3.21 forcibly and illegally seized her vehicle from Bandalo,Tangi,Cuttack without giving prior notice.  Due to such forceful seizure of the vehicle by the O.Ps No.1 to 3, the complainant was deprived of earning her livelihood.  She approached the O.P No.1 to 3 for release of her vehicle on payment of Rs.30,000/- but the O.Ps No.1 to 3 refused to release the vehicle.  It is stated by the complainant that due to illegal action on the part of O.Ps No.1 to 3, the complainant had undergone mental agony as well as she could not ply the vehicle and could not earn any income for which she alongwith her family members are maintaining a  miserable life. Hence she has filed the case against the O.Ps as the O.Ps have caused deficiency in service  and have adopted unfair trade practice.  The complainant further prayed for a direction to the O.Ps No.1 to 3 to supply of copy of agreement and latest statement of accounts as well as Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and litigation expenses..

            In support of her case, the complainant has filed Xerox copies of certain documents.

2.         The O.Ps no.1 to 3 have neither appeared nor filed any written version.  Hence they are set exparte.  The O.P No.4 has filed his written version but he has no role to play in this case.  However, it is stated by the O.P No.4 that the O.Ps No.1 to 3 have seized the vehicle of the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act?

ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

iii.        Whether the O.Ps have committed any deficiency in service?

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had adopted unfair trade practice?

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

Issues no.i & ii.

            Issues no.i & ii are taken together first for consideration here in this case.  It is revealed from the complaint petition and the documents available in the record that the complainant by availing loan from the O.Ps No.1 to 3 had purchased the vehicle in order to earn her livelihood.  She also has paid monthly instalments to the said O.Ps.Hence the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the case is maintainable.

Issue no.iii & iv.

            The complainant has admitted that she was a defaulter in payment of instalments due to Covid-19 pandemic situation.  But it is alleged by the complainant that she was not furnished with the agreement copy as well as the up-to-date account statements for repayment of the loan amount which remains unchallenged.  The agreement period is from 10.10.18 to 10.6.23.  There is also unchallenged statement of the complainant is that the O.Ps without giving prior notice illegally and forcibly repossessed the vehicle of the complainant on 6.3.21.  Hence the O.Ps No.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service as well as have adopted unfair trade practice.

Issue no.v.

            From the above discussions, the complainant is entitled to certain reliefs from the O.Ps No.1 to 3.  The O.P No.4 is no way responsible in the present case.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps no.1 to 3 who are found jointly and severally liable in this case and they are directed to furnish the copy of the loan agreement, up-to-date accounts statement to the complainant.  They are also further directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for her mental agony and harassment and a  sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.

 

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President