Orissa

Cuttak

CC/56/2021

Muralidhar Moharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Nayak

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                      C.C.No.56/2021

Sri Muralidhar Moharana,

S/O:Late Nidhi Moharana,

At:Badhei Sahi,P.O:Buxi Bazar,

P.S:Mangalabag,Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753001.                ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

Branch Manager,

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Servaice Ltd.,

Cuttack Branch,2^nd Floor,Sumitira Plaza,

Madhupatna,Badambadi,Cuttack-753012....Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.03.2021

Date of Order:  30.08.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. R.K.Nayak,Advocate.

For the O.P :                               Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that as per the Loan Agreement dt.30.8.19 for the finance amount of Rs.3,75,000/-, the complainant had agreed to repay Rs.5,82,190/- including finance charge of Rs.2,07,190/-.  The complainant had agreed to repay this loan in 64 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.9100/- with effect from 5.11.19 to 5.2.25.  He had availed this loan for purchasing a car which was snatched away by the henchmen of the O.P when he defaulted in paying the E.M.Is.  Thus, he has filed this case seeking direction to the O.P for releasing the vehicle after accepting only one E.M.I for the month of February,2021 and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and also with a prayer for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            He has filed xerox copy of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P has contested this case and has  filed his written version wherein he has mentioned that the complainant was advanced finance after executing the loan agreement and when he defaulted after due observance of the formalities according to law, the vehicle was repossessed.  The O.P has also questioned as regards to the jurisdiction of this Commission when there is availability of Arbitration clause.  Thus, according to the O.P, there was no deficiency in service and the case as filed is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version as filed by O.P, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issue No.ii.

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            It is not in dispute that the complainant had availed a loan from the O.P by executing a Loan Agreement to that effect.  He had agreed therein to clear the availed loan from the O.P in 64 number of E.M.Is with effect from 5.11.19 @ Rs.9100/-.  He also admits to have defaulted in paying the regular E.M.Is and had taken the plea of pandemic Covid-19 situation.  On 7.3.21 the car of the complainant while running at Manguli area was taken away by the O.P after handing him over the Yard Entry Inventory.  It is needless to reiterate that the complainant by executing the loan agreement had agreed to repay the loan as per the agreed E.M.Is regularly and by defaulting in paying the said amount he had indeed committed breach of the agreement which had entitled the O.P to repossess the vehicle.  The complainant was given Yard Entry Inventory and the vehicle was repossessed as the complainant was a defaulter.  Thus, this Commission do not find the O.P to be liable for any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues no.i & iii.

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

                                                            ORDER

The case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.4 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.