Orissa

Jajapur

CC/79/2017

Binod Kumar Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Srikanta Sarangi

31 Jan 2020

ORDER

IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1. Shri Jiban ballav Das,President

                                                                           2. Shri Pitabas Mohanty, Member

                                                                           3. Miss Smita  Ray, Lady Member             

                                                       Dated the 31ST  day of  January ,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 79  of 2017

Binod Kumar Patra, S/O Sukadev Patra

Vill. Sisirana  , P.O.  Balamukuli Hat  ,

P.S. Binjharpur , Dt.Jajpur   .  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

1. Mahindra and Mahindra Finance  services Ltd, Gateway Building Appole

Burder, Mumbai

2. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd, At/P.O. Panikoili ,

             Dt.Jajpur.

3. Utkal Automobiles Pvt.Ltd, N.H.5,Gandarpur,Cuttack .      ……………..Opp.Parties.                   

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

For the Complainant:                         Sri Srikanta Sarangi, Sri P.K.Mohapatra,  Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties : no.1 and 2        Sri B.K.Tripathy , Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                   Sri B.P.Sarangi, B.Pattnaik,P.Swain and D.Mohanty,Advocates

                                                                                                     Date of order:  31 .01. 2020.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT .  

The petitioner has filed the preset dispute alleging deficiency in service against the o.ps.

The fact of the case in short are  that the petitioner  purchased a three wheeler passenger Auto Rickshaw   bearing  temporary   Regd. No.  OD-05-T-1613521 from  Utkal  Automobile Pvt.Ltd,  cuttack with the financial assistance of op.2.  At the time of purchase of the vehicle cost of the vehicle was Rs.1,85,649.91/- excluding other charges and out of said cost the petitioner deposited  cash  Rs. 5,000/ along with Rs. 20,000/-  towards  the cost of exchange value of old auto . The petitioner  paid Rs 25,000 /- to the O.P  .The monthly installment  was  fixed at the rate of Rs.6370/- for 46 installments.  . After purchase  the petitioner has  paid Rs 13000/-  in two  months  towards  monthly installment , an  amount i.e 6,500/-  per month . But the petitioner could not run the vehicle on the road  as the op could not supply the essential documents like RC book  etc. .Thereafter the O.Ps    for supplying the said document   played  hide and seek game  with  the petitioner , for which the petitioner  could not run the vehicle on the road  though  he  paid the installments regularly . The O.P  threatened  to repossess the  vehicle without any sufficient  cause.

Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this For a with the prayer to direct the O.Ps  not  to seize/ repossess the vehicle and fixed another period  for repayment of installment  and also pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and litigation expenses .

            After  receipt of notice  the O.Ps have appeared and filed their written version  taking   the stand that after being satisfied with the financial credibility of the petitioner the O.Ps  sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the petitioner, agreement value including interest to be repaid by the petitioner was Rs.2,98,020/- and agreement executed on 09.12.2016. The agreement value of Rs.2,98,020/- was to be rapid by the petitioner in 47 installments and the EMI fixed at the rate of Rs.6370/- . The complainant after availing the loan from the O.Ps had paid only three installment of EMI amounting to Rs.17,870/- .The complainant has paid only 3 installments and is in default of Rs,69,940/- and also late payment charges to the tune of Rs13,492/- along with cheque return charges of Rs.3090/- and total amounting to Rs.86,522 in addition to the future receivables of Rs.2,10,210/- . As per loan agreement the borrower/ agreed that so long as the loan remains, the borrower shall repay the  laon amount along with interest in periodical installments on the fixed due date as specified in schedule of the loan agreement. The present complainant has never  paid his installments in time. The Complainant has never suffered any financial loss  and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed  by him and the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed in limini for filing of frivolous and vexatious  proceeding.

            The O.P.no.3 has taken the stand in their written argument that the complainant has never approached the Forum with clean hand . The complaint under reply is devoid of merit and the case is liable to be dismissed . The complainant has deliberately concealed truth  and materials facts to the Hon’ble Forum which have a definite bearing upon the outcome of the present case and by doing this the complaint has made false and frivolous allegation against the O.Ps. The complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the present complaint has been  initiated in violation of section-13 of C.P.Act. It is submitted that provision of C.P.Act 1986 is mandatory provisions and institutions of the complainant without strict compliance  of the same, itself is a ground to dismiss the complaint  with cost. The vehicle was financed by O.Pno.1 and 2 after taking care of all formalities the vehicle  was handed over to the complainant . It is to be submitted that after depositing of the registration fees of rs.11,701/- and temporary registration certificate was issued  to the complaint for better appreciation  and the temporary registration the road tax was also been paid to the concerned authority i.e R.T.O, Cuttack . That in reply the fact of the case the O.Ps respectfully submitted that the entire allegation was  regarding the non payment of EMI and the seizure of the vehicle  was baseless .  There was no such  allegation against the present O.P regarding each service difference and it is with respect to submit the documents i.e R.C book  to be taken care of by the complainant and the present O.P  has no role. Accordingly the O.P.no.3 be  deleted from the cause title of the present dispute.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate for O.P.no.1 and O.P.no.2  . No step is taken on behalf of complainant .O.p.no.3 who was  absent. After perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed fact that the  petitioner has purchased the  alleged three wheeler vehicle with the financial assistance of O.P .no.1 and 2.

The petitioner has alleged that due to non submission of essential documents or  R.C book etc the petitioner could  not ply the vehicle on the road for which the petitioner did not pay the installments to the O.P..no.1 and 2 ( financer) regularly. Thereafter the O.P.no.1 and 2 tried to repossess the vehicle forcibly . On the other hand the O.P.no3 taken the stand in the written version that they have already deposited Rs.11,701/-before the concerned R.T.O, Cuttack  for temporary registration . On this point it is our considered view that in the present dispute  if petitioner could have made  a party  to concerned R.T.O, by whom the said vehicle was registered but the petitioner did not do so .

 on the other hand the petitioner also  has approached this Fora  to pass appropriate order not to seize the vehicle  by the O.Ps. but  the petitioner is a chronic defaulter and not paying the EMI regularly as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement . As per the observation of the Appex court / Appellate Forum  the petitioner has to pay the loan amount within the stipulated period . But  the petitioner never followed the terms of the agreement. Accordingly it is our considered view there is no merit in the present dispute since as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006-CTJ-209-SC( MD Orix Auto Finance India Ltd Vrs. Joginder Singh & another),  the O.Ps are empowered to seize the vehicle as per hypothecation agreement .

Hence this Order

            The dispute is dismissed  on contest without cost .

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st  day of  January ,2020. under my hand and seal of the Forum.