DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

C.C.NO. 57 OF 2022

                                                                             Date of Filing: 19.10.2022

                    Date of Order: 27.03.2023

Sri Sukumari Digal, w/o Santosh Kumar Digal,

At-Dadhibaman Sahu, Phulbani

PO/PS-Phulbani

District-Kandhamal PIN-762011  ……………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.,

At-Rosulgarh Over-bridge, Block-A, Sector-A,

Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751007.

2. Branch Manager,

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.,

Near Syndicate Bank, Phulbani, Kandhamal

3. Sunil Mishra, Collection Agent,

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.,

Near Syndicate Bank, Phulbani, Kandhamal

4. Hadibandhu Das, Collection Agent,

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Ltd.,

Near Syndicate Bank, Phulbani, Kandhamal

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant        : Adv. Manoj Kumar Sahoo

For O.P No.1                     : Adv. Bijay Kumar Mohanty

For O.P No.2,3, & 4       : None /Ex-parte                    

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

          Complainant Sukumari Digal has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for snatching away her tractor and trolley by use of criminal force by hired muscle men without prior notice and praying therein for direction to the OP No.2 to receive the EMIs pending till 29.11.2021, deliver the vehicle in running condition, direction to the OP No. 3 and 4 to deposit the cash received from the complainant on different dates, direction to OP No. 2 not to impose any other charges against the complainant for defaulting in payment from 29.11.2021 till finalization of the present complain and pay cost of compensation of Rs. 50, 000/- and Rs. 1,00000/- respectively.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant being an unemployed lady with the sole intention to maintain her livelihood by way of self-employment, obtained loan from the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 for purchase of a Tractor and Trolley. She deposited a sum of Rs. 3,00, 000/-(three lakhs)only towards down payment and the rest of the loan was to be paid in 60 monthly installment of Rs. 15,000/- each. Due to pandemic situation Covid 19, complainant failed to repay 3 to 4 number of equated monthly installments in time. After lapse of some months, the complainant paid 2 numbers of EMIs and gave it to OP No.2. But OP No. 2 did not deposit the amount with OP No. 1. On 29.11.2021, the OP No. 2 instructed the complainant to come to Rujangi along with the vehicle for updating of loan account. On receiving instruction, the complainant reached Rujangi immediately where she found OP No. 2 to be present with 7 to 8 other persons carrying lethal weapons and they forcefully snatched away the vehicle from the possession of the complainant. When she protested, the OP No. 2 along with other persons abused her in filthy languages and dragged her physically as a result of which her blouse and saree was completely torn and out of fear, the complainant and her husband tried to escape from the clutches of the anti-socials. But, her husband was assaulted and she was forced to sign in a printed form in a printed form and she was threatened to leave the place immediately. The complainant, after the incident, reported the matter in Phulbani Police Station but the police officials refused to accept her FIR on the plea that it relates to financial matter and advised her to talk with the OPs. It is further stated that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 57,000/- on 26.10.2021 and a sum of Rs. 19, 400/- and Rs. 4000/- to the OPs. The complainant as per advice of the seizure personal arranged money. But, the OP No. 3 and 4 refused to accept the deposit and instructed the complainant to contact with OP No.2. But, the OP No. 2 also did not accept the amount. The OP No. 3 and 4 had collected a sum of Rs. 40, 000/- in shape of cash from the complainant but the amount was not deposited in the loan account of the complainant. When she finally approached the OP No. 2 in the month of September-2022, she was intimated that the vehicle has been auctioned. It is further submitted that no notice was issued to the complainant before snatching away of the vehicle nor before selling the vehicle for which the act of the Opposite Parties is completely illegal and finding no other alternative; she was compelled to file this case before this Commission for the relief as discussed in preceding paragraphs.
2. Upon notice, the OP No. 1 appeared through his Advocate and in spite of repeated adjournments granted to him, he preferred not to file any written statement or to challenge the allegations made by the complainants in any manner. In spite of service of notice on OP No. 2, 3 and 4,  did not appear and therefore, they were set ex-partee.
3. The complainant, in support of her case, has filed her evidence in shape of affidavit along with affidavit of her husband and the driver of the tractor.
4.  As the OP No. 1 appeared and did not challenge the allegations raised against him, it is deemed to have been admitted by OP No. 1. As OP No. 2, 3 and 4 did not challenge the allegations raised against them, it is deemed to have been admitted by them.
5. The first issue relating to this case is whether the Ops are justified in snatching away the tractor and trolley from the custody of the complainant without prior notice and by using criminal force through hired muscle men? It is settled principle of law that no financial institution can take the help of hired goondas to forcibly snatch away a vehicle from the custody of a loanee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case of Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vrs. S.Vijayalaxmi(2012-AIR- SC- 509) has ruled that use of criminal force through hired muscle men is unacceptable in the eyes of law and the finance company is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment arising out of such unlawful act. In the instant case, the complainant in her evidence has clearly stated that the Opposite Part No. 2 instructed her to come to Rujangi where 7 to8 persons were present there with lethal weapons who forcefully snatched away the vehicle from her possession, abused her in filthy languages, dragged her physically and outraged her modesty and assaulted her husband and in fear, she put her signature in a printed form. All these activities of the OP No. 2 are corroborated by the evidence of her husband and some other witnesses present at the spot. So, from the evidence led by the complainant, it is very much clear that the tractor and trolley of the complainant were snatched away from her custody by using criminal force through hired muscle men and her modesty has been outraged by the hired goondas and her signature has been obtained in a printed form under fear and coercion after her husband was physically assaulted by the anti-socials engaged by OP No. 2.
6. The next issue is related to sale of the seized vehicle by the Opposite Parties. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle has been sold behind her back without following due procedure of law. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that whether the vehicle has been sold following due procedure of law or not. As the Opposite Parties are completely silent and did not challenge the allegations made against them, we come to a clear conclusion that the vehicle has been sold in a very illegal and clandestine manner without following due procedure of law.
7.  The next issue relates to collection of Rs. 40, 000/- from the complainant by OP No. 3 and 4 and not crediting it to her loan account. Since the OP No. 3 and 4 did not raise any objection to the allegation of the complainant it is deemed to have been admitted by them.
8. From the discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Parties have snatched away the tractor and trolley from the custody of the complainant by use of criminal force, obtained her signature in a printed form by use of fear and coercion, outraged her modesty, assaulted her husband and sole away her vehicle in a very clandestine and suspicious manner without following due procedure of law.
9. The O.P. has snatched away the vehicle by use of criminal force and without following due procedure of law. The O.P.is under obligation to issue notice to the complainant prior to seizure of the vehicle and after the seizure to intimate the complainant expressing their intention to sale the vehicle and to intimate him regarding to highest bid and to afford him a chance to arrange any other bidder who can make more payment then the highest bid. In the instant case the vehicle has been seized by passing all the norms which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as well.
10. The tractor was the only source of income for the complainant. The complainant has lost her subsistence by the high handed action of the O.P. She ran from pillar to post to get her vehicle released but the evil and illegal design devoid her to get the vehicle released and the O.P there by caused sufficient harassment to the lady.
11. Before concluding, we would like to draw the attention of S.P., Kandhamal regarding the role of IIC, Phulbani Police Station. Instead of registering a case against the accused persons. The complainant scheduled castes lady. She was physically assaulted, her signature was forcibly obtained under fear and coercion her husband was assaulted the tractor and trolley were forcibly snatched away by used of criminal force in an illegal manner and in violation of the R.B.I. guidelines. She was advised to approach the criminal and to enter into a compromise with them.as a clean case of assault, outraging of modesty and theft is well made out against the OP No. 2, 3 and 4, they advised her to approach the criminals and to compromise with them. S.P., Kandhamal is directed to take necessary steps to ensure proper action against the accused persons as per provisions of law. The complainant scheduled castes lady. She was physically assaulted, her signature was forcibly obtained under fear and coercion her husband was assaulted the tractor and trolley were forcibly snatched away by used of criminal force in an illegal manner and in violation of the R.B.I. guidelines.
12. As a case of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment is clearly made out against the Opposite Parties, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed on contest against OP No. 1 and expartee against OP No. 2, 3 and 4. The OP No. 2 is directed to immediately hand over the tractor and trolley bearing Registration No. OD-12B-9133 and OD-12B-9134 respectively. The OP No. 1 and 2 are directed to first hand over tractor and trolley to the complainant in good and perfect running condition within 24 hours from the time of receipt of this order and provide a complete statement of accounts to the complainant immediately till 29.11. 2021 and in their failure to hand over the vehicle, they are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-(three lakhs) only to the complainant with interest @ 9% from 29.11.2021 till it is actually paid to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand)only towards compensation and a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The OP No. 3 and 4 are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 40, 000/-(forty thousand)only to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this case till the amount is actually paid to her. The OP No. 3 and 4 are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/-(fifty thousand)only each as compensation for causing harassment to a lady by not depositing the collected amount in her loan account. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lakhs)only as compensation for deficiency in service on unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs.25,000/-(twenty five thousand)only towards to cost of litigation. The order as to cost and compensation is to be paid within of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which, interest @12% will be charged on the entire amount from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

A copy of the order be sent to S.P., Kandhamal for necessary action as per law.

                                                         Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 27^th day of March  2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT