DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 2018.
Date of hearing : 11.06.2024.
Date of order : 23.07.2024.
Dated the 23rd day of July 2024.
Sri Ganeswar Jena, S/o:-Chakradhar Jena,
Vill:-Solapata, Po:- Salania, P.S:- Nandipada,
Dist:-Keonjhar, Odisha. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Chairman & Managing Director,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
Regd.Office:- Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder,
Mumbai, Pin-400001.
- The Branch-In-Charge,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
511, 1st Floor, Mahindra Tower, Rasulgarh,
Bhubaneswar, Pin-751010.
- The Branch-In-Charge,
Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,
At:- R.C. Behera Mansion, By-Pass,
Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak. . . . . Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Debasish Nayak, Advocate .
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Sri B.K. Tripathy, Advocate & Associate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant to maintain his family gets a Tractor financed from the O.Ps. It was agreed between them that the complainant would to liquidate the loan amount in 36 Nos. of installments & the O.Ps will arrange the subsidy from District Agricultural Office & it will adjust from the loan account of the complainant. As per dominating instruction of O.P. the complainant made a formal loan agreement with the O.P. on dtd.21.01.2014 bearing No.3015855. The loan was sanctioned by the O.Ps & ultimately the said vehicle Swaraj Trolley/Trailor 4 WHL Hydraulic vide Regd. No.OD-22-A-8376 was given to the complainant & the vehicle bearing Chassis No.WXTA31418033078& Engine No.391354STA00516A. The O.Ps have not supplied the copy of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation agreement, repayment schedule & statement of account to the complainant till date which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant has regularly paid his loan amount to the O.Ps without any fail. Due to inherent manufacturing defect in tractor, financial stringency & illness of the mother of complainant, he would not repay balance outstanding loan due i.e. EMI. Besides this when complainant wants to deposit the amount less than the fixed EMI, the cashier of the O.P.3 financer refused to accept the amount, for which the complainant is prejudiced. Without adjusting the subsidy amount the O.Ps are demanding the amount of Rs.1,31,040/- which is not only wrong, illegal but also unfair trade practice of O.Ps. The complainant never committed any willful default or negligence in performance of his obligation, in other hand a serious responsibility under law cast against the O.Ps to fulfill the terms & conditions but no effective steps has yet been made which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. The O.Ps committed gross illegality & also committed deficiency of service towards their customers & the complainant also suffers with both mental & physical agony as well as financial loss for the activity of the O.Ps. The cause of action arose on dtd.02.09.2017 when the complainant requested to the O.Ps to provide the copy of the statement of account, loan-cum-hypothecation agreement & on dtd.20.05.2018 when the O.Ps gave threatened to the complainant for repossession & sale of the vehicle for the non-payment of loan dues. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps for referral of the dispute to Arbitrator and for compensation for harassment and mental agony and also for supply of payment schedule & loan-cum-hypothecation agreement from O.Ps. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. (1) Representation of the complainant to the O.P.No.2 & (2) Registration Certificate.
The O.Ps submit that, the complainant had approached the O.Ps for sanction & disbursal of two loan amounts of Rs.50,000/- & Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2014 for the purpose of purchasing a Swaraj Trailor & a Tractor respectively of his choice under hypothecation to the O.Ps. After being satisfied with the financial credibility of the complainant the O.Ps sanctioned & disbursed the two loans, the first loan being for an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant which was tobe repaid by the complainant was Rs.71,750/- & an agreement was executed on 29.01.2014 vide Loan Agreement No.3015855. The complainant purchased a vehicle of his choice being a Swaraj Trolley/ Trailer, bearing Engine No. HE501314 which was registered with the RTO, Bhadrak bearing Regd. No.OD-22-A-8377. The agreement value of Rs.71,750/- was to be repaid by the complainant in 35 monthly installments each starting from 05.02.2014 & ending on 05.12.2016. The installments were to be paid within the 5th day of every month. The complainant has paid all the installments in this loan agreement but not within the scheduled time for which he has been charges delay payments charges as per the loan agreement & only an amount of Rs.4,667/- is due & payable by the complainant to the O.Ps. The O.Ps had sanctioned & disbursed another loan for Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant which was to be repaid by the complainant was Rs.5,72,000/- & an agreement was executed on 29.01.2014 vide Loan Agreement No. 3015830. The complainant purchased a vehicle of his choice being a Swaraj Trolley/Trailer, bearing Engine No.391354STA00516A & Chassis No.WXTA31418033078 which was registered with the RTO, Bhadrak bearing Regd. No. OD-22-A-8376. The agreement value of Rs.5,72,000/- was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 monthly installments each starting from 05.02.2014 & ending on 05.12.2017. The said installments were to be paid within the 5th day of every month. The complainant has paid only 32 installment of E.M.I. amounting to Rs.3,92,280/- & the last payment was received from him on 18.03.2017 & had failed to pay the subsequent E.M.Is. As in June 2018, the complainant was in default of Rs.1,79,720/- i.e. 15 E.M.I. plus additional financial charges amounting to Rs.96,025/-, total outstanding of Rs.2,75,745/- was due & payable by him. The O.Ps have not repossessed the hypothecated vehicle till today & the said vehicle is still in the possession of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
Having heard the rival contentions and after careful scrutiny of the materials available in the case record, this commission finds that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate the charges which he levels against these O.Ps. The complainant has to do equity to get equity. The onus of proving that he has regularly paid the installments in time is upon the complainant. The complainant failed miserably even to say to this commission as to what amount he has paid till the date of filing of the complaint and till the date of hearing of this present dispute. It is very much within its right to repossess the financed vehicle in case of non-payment of agreed repayment. Similarly, the referral of a dispute to Arbitration is a kind of exclusive right only available to the executants of the agreement. The financer has all the legitimate rights to adopt all procedures of law to get back its money which cannot be termed as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. The complainant has to pay the loan amount and interest and other charges accrued as per the terms of the loan agreement by the end of the tenure of the loan or else the O.P financers are free to exercise their legal rights to get back their loan. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
