Orissa

Cuttak

CC/169/2022

Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N K Dash & associates

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.169/2022

 

Sudhansu Sekhar Nayak,

At:Chikinia,PO:Tarapur,

P.S:Raghunath,Dist:Jagatsinghpur,

At present at ChandiChhak,

PO:Buxibazar,P.S:Cantonment,Town/Dist:Cuttack.         ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,

Represented through its Managing Director,

Regd. Office at Gateway Building,Apollo Bandar,

                              Mumbai-400001

 

2. The Chief Executive Officer,

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,

At: 2^ndFloor,SadhanaHouse,Behind Mahindra Towers,

570 TS Marg,Worlet,Mumbai-400018.

 

3. Branch Manager,

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,

At:1^st Floor,Unit-1,Nandighosh Area,G,A1,

Plot No.1246,Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751009.

 

4. Branch Manager,

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,

                                  At-2nd floor,Sumitra Plaza,

ArunodayaNagar,NearGovt.Bus Stand,

PO-Arundoya Market,PS-Badambadi,

Town/Dist.-Cuttack-753012.                                                    … OPP. Parties

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     21.08.2022

Date of Order:    20.01.2023

 

For the complainant:              Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :      None.

 

 

Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member          

                                   

The case of the complainant in short is that by availing a loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/- repayable in 60 monthly instalments @ Rs.7,035/-from the O.P he had purchased the vehicle of make “KWID RXL” bearing Regd. No.OD-33L-4415 in the year 2017.  The loan agreement was executed between the complainant and the O.Ps to that effect.  It is stated by the complainant that in the mean time he had paid a substantial amount of Rs.4,05,000/- to the O.Ps but due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, his business hampered for whichhe  could not pay the instalments in due time.  It is further stated by the complainant that on 16.8.22 the agent of the O.Ps forcibly seized his vehicle on his way from Kandarpur Bazar to Cuttack.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps have not given prior notice of seizure before seizing his vehicle.  However, as per the conversation with the O.Ps, he paid Rs.17,250/- on 16.8.22 for release of his vehicle towards the arrear instalment dues but inspite of the said  of payment, the O.Ps did not release his vehicle in his favour on the plea that the complainant has not cleared outstanding dues towards the delay and default charges.   Hence, the complainant has approached this Commission to hold that the action/service of the O.Ps by seizing his vehicle is unjust,unfair,deficient and illegal and prayed for compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony as well as  Rs.50,000/- towards financial loss and Rs.30,000/ towards the  litigation expenses to be payable by the O.Ps to him.

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

2.       Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.10.10.2022.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

 

Point no.ii.

          Point no.ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

          The complainant had purchased a vehicle of make “KWID RXL”,which was registered on 17.2.2017 having Regd. No.OD-33L-4415by availing loan amount of Rs.3,75,000/- from the O.Ps, repayable in 60 monthly instalments @ Rs.7,035/-.  An agreement was executed between the parties to that effect.  It is pleaded by the complainant that the loan agreement was not provided to him.The complainantalleged to have incurred the loan amounting to Rs.3,75,000 and he was liable to pay Rs.47,100/-towards the interest component, thereby in total he was liable to pay Rs.4,22,100/- towards the entire loan amount to the O.Ps.  It is stated by the complainant that he has already paid Rs.4,05,000/- before the seizure of the vehicle and after the seizure of the vehicle, he paid Rs.17,250/- on 16.8.2022 to the O.Ps. In total, he has already paid Rs.4,22,100/-, which is the total loan dues.  Hence, there is no outstanding dues against him. Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, the General public had suffered a lot both mentally, physically and financially.  The Reserve Bank of India in short RBI had relaxed the period for re-payment of loan dues due to such reason.  There is no material before this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that the O.Ps hadextended such benefits as per the R.B.I guidelines to the loan account of the complainant.It is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps on 16.8.22 had seized his vehicle without prior notice.The O.Ps have not appeared before this Commission inspite of notice from this Commission.  Hence the averments as made in the complaint petition are deemed to be true.  The allegation of the complainant to the effect that the O.Ps had not supplied the Loan Agreement to him remains unchallenged.The O.Ps  by not giving prior notice had seized the vehicle of the complainant.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.This Commission vide its interim order dt.9.9.22 had directed the O.Ps to release the vehicle of the complainant in his favour on payment of up-to-date E.M.Is by the complainant but this Commission is not aware about the present possession of the vehiclewith whom.  However, this point goes in favour of the complainant.

Pointsno.i& iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs but to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is allowed partly, exparte against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are directed not tocharge any amounttowards delay and default charges.The O.Ps are directed  to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant if not released in the mean time,  as soon as the defaulted E.M.Is if any,  are paid by the complainant.  They are further directed to issue ‘NOC’ in favour of the complainant forthwith.  The complainant is at liberty to approach the O.Ps for release of his vehicle on payment of defaultedE.M.Is only if any.   This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  As regards to the factsand circumstances of the case there would be no cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the   20^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member

 

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President