Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/14/2017

Pradyumna Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra and Mahindra FInance Service Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri H.C. Dani & R.P

03 Aug 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-14/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Pradyumna Kumar Patra,

S/O-Susanta Patra,

At/PO/Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                                 …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Limited,

First Floor, Sabat Campus, Ainthapali,

National Highway-6, Po/Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur.                                                            …..….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Sri. H.C. Dani, Advocate and Associates
2. For the O.P.s                    :-Sri. A.K.Sahoo, Advocate and Associates

 

DATE OF HEARING : 05.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :03.08.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The Complainant filed the Complaint before this Commission with allegation that he has hypothecated the vehicle Bolero XLT Plus Regd. No. OD-15B-3451 with the O.P. while the vehicle was engaged in General Election to PRIS 2017 requisitioned by the collector & D.M., Sambalpur, the vehicle was seized on 11.02.2017 by the O.P. assaulting the driver Jadunath Rana. The sole prayer of the Complainant is to release the vehicle from the O.P.
2. The O.P. after appearance filed version and stated that Rs. 4,75,000/- finance was provided to the Complainant and the agreement value was Rs. 6,11,220/-. The repayment schedule was 40 installments starting from 21.02.2014 to 20.05.2017 and the installment to be paid before 20^th of respective month. Till 11.02.2017 the Complainant was supposed to pay 36 installments but only paid 31 installments and was in default of Rs. 74,680/- late payment charges Rs. 21,421/- cheque bounce charges Rs. 500/- in addition to future reuivables of Rs. 61,120/-.

Despite repeated request also when repayment was not made the O.P. hired third party Agency to repossess the vehicle. As per order dated 16.02.2017 of the Forum/Commission in interim relief the vehicle has been released and denied all allegations.

3. Perused the Account Statement filed by the O.P. The Complainant was a regular defaulter and for which repossession step has been taken by the O.P.

As the vehicle has already been released on 16.02.2017 by the O.P. and interim order of this Forum/Commission has been complied,

I am not inclined to continue further this case. The Complainant is also not taking any steps since 16.08.2018 and not complied the order of the Forum. Accordingly the case is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on this 3^rd day of August 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.