Orissa

Cuttak

CC/107/2018

Nrusingha Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

S K Nayak & associates

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.107/2018

 

Nrusingha Nayak,

S/O:Pranabandhu Nayak,

Village:Ramdaspur,PO:Godisahi,

PS:Barang,Dist:Cuttack.                                                            ... Complainant.

  

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Manager,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

2^nd Floor,Sumitra Plaza,Trinath Bazar,

Badambadi,Cuttack-753012.

 

2.        Manager, Regional Office,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,

Mahindra Tower,1^st Floor,Plot no.511,

Bhubaneswar-751010.                                                        ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.12.2018

Date of Order:   17.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-33D-9974 of model Tata LPK 2518/38 SD TC BSIII by incurring a loan to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- which was to be repaid by 10.6.19 through E.M.Is of Rs.57,660/-.  The said vehicle of the complainant was stolen by some unknown culprits around the midnight of 26.11.15 for which the matter was reported before the IIC,Sadar P.S of Cuttack vide P.S.Case no.342/2018.  The Insurance Company had sanctioned the insured amount of Rs.26,71,768/- which was credited and transferred to the bank account of the O.Ps.  The complainant had by then paid two E.M.Is of Rs.1,15,320/- to the O.Ps. The vehicle of the complainant was valued to be of Rs.28,13,965/- without accessories and the complainant had invested an amount of Rs.1,36,035/- towards its renovation by purchasing necessary accessories.  Thus, the vehicle was totally valued for Rs.29,50,000/-.  The complainant had invested a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- towards the purchase of a truck but the O.Ps with oblique motive had transferred to the account of the complainant only a sum of Rs.2,06,768/- instead of Rs.7,87,088/-.  According to the complainant, the O.Ps are entitled to receive only an amount of Rs.18,85,000/- towards the full and final satisfaction of the loan account.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case claiming refund of Rs.5,80,320/- with accrued interest thereon together with a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards his mental agony, another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards dislocation of his work, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards persuasion of the matter before the O.Ps before filing of this case and also for Rs.5000/- towards his litigation expenses.

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

2.         Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the vehicle was stolen for which report was made on 26.11.15 whereas the Insurance Company had passed the insurance on 13.12.17 i.e. after lapse of 24 months from the date of the theft.  According to the O.Ps, the value of the asset was of Rs.23,13,965/- and the finance amount was of Rs.20,00,000/- with financial charges of Rs.5,94,040/-.  Hence the total loan was of Rs.25,94,670/- which was to be repaid in 45 number of E.M.Is @ Rs.57,660/-.  The complainant had paid two number of E.M.Is amounting to Rs.1,15,000/- and thus by deducting the said amount, the outstanding amount was of Rs.24,79,240/-.  The Insurance Company had sanctioned an amount of Rs.26,71,768/- towards full and final settlement of the claim which was credited to the account of the O.Ps with the consent of the complainant.  Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.24,65,000/-, the balance amount of Rs.2,06,768/- was refunded to the account of the complainant.  As such, there was no deficiency in service or practice of any unfair trade.  The O.Ps have also raised the point of jurisdiction of this Commission and have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost.

            They have filed copies of certain documents in order to establish their case.

3.         After going through the averments of the complaint petition and the written version as available in the case record, this Commission thinks it proper 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 the O.Ps & practice of any unfair trade by the O.Ps ?

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

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

            The incurring of the loan, purchase of the vehicle and theft of the vehicle is not disputed here in this case.  The insurance company after settling the claim of the complainant had paid pan amount of Rs. 26,71,768/- which is well evident from the letter dt.31.7.18 of the complainant to the O.P no.1.  The complainant has also admitted therein that he had to pay a sum of Rs.25,80,000/- to the O.Ps.  Thus, when the O.Ps after getting back the total amount of Rs. 26,71,768/- had adjusted the balance amount of Rs.24,65,000/- towards the outstanding loan arrear and thereafter they had credited an amount of Rs.2,06,768/- to the account of the complainant.  Accordingly, this Commission finds no error and thereby no deficiency is noticed nor any practice of unfair trade is made out against the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

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

                                                            ORDER

            Case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th  day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                         Member