PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 90/2012

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Satyanarayan Parida,

S/O- Gopabandhu Parida,

R/O-Tanlapada, Sambalpur Town, PO-Jharuapada ,

Ps-Town, Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha.                              …..Complainant

Vrs.

1. The Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.,

Ainthapali, Sambalpur.

2. Managing Director/Manager, Shriram Group of Companies

Admn. Office : Mookambika Complex,

4, lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai                      ….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. D.K.Panda, Advocate & associates

2. For the O.Ps.                                 :-         Sri. S.K.Mishra, Advocate & associates

DATE OF HEARING : 27.04.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 28.06.2022

Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member:          

1. The case of the Complainant is that being attracted and influenced by advertisement in paper and media the Complainant went to O.P. No.1 i.e. Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, Ainthapali, Sambalpur and refinance the vehicle amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-  and paid sown payment of Rs. 10,900/- at the rate of 15% interest bearing vehicle Regd. No. OR-15K-6600 as per agreement. The Complainant paid his installment regularly from dtd. 25.05.2010 to 20.01.2012 and the Complainant has already paid Rs. 1,37,259/- in total to the O.P. then the Complainant wants to O.P. to close the account but the O.P. No.1 requested the Complainant to come some other day for closing the account, the Complainant went his payment’s statement, Surprisingly in this statement shown balance Rs. 96,298/- was out standing against the Complainant . Due to such activity the Complainant has filed this Consumer Dispute Case.
2. The O.P. in his version pleaded that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as the vehicle is used for commercial purpose. The Complainant is not maintainable as no evidence has been placed by the Complainant to establish that he himself is/was involved in the vehicle for his own earning in order to sustain his livelihood. The allegation of the Complainant of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. is not justified and proper reason being the borrower himself has not acted in consonance with the terms of the agreement and committed default in paying the installments regularly. The Complainant availed Financial assistance of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P. in order to refinance a TATA Indica v₂ bearing Regd. No. OR-15-K-6600 and accordingly agreement was executed between the parties vide agreement No. SMBLP0004160002 dtd. 17.04.2010 and under the agreement the Complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,40,974/- in 21 monthly installment  at the rate of Rs. 6454/- for the 1^St installment and Rs. 6184/- each for the rest 20 installment respectively and payment of installment commenced  from 20.05.2010 to 20.01.2012.

The agreement executed by the parties cast responsibility and obligation on both to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein, which stipulates that the borrower shall regularly pay the installments non-payment of the installments shall be a clause to re-possess the vehicle by the O.Ps. Similarly irregular/Delayed Payment of the installments due by the borrower authorizes the O.Ps to charge D.P.C./O.D.C repossession of the Finance assets is made only when the borrower commits consecutive defaults in paying installments which is permissible under the contract and very a great deal within the knowledge of the Complainant from the very day of the execution of the contract. The Complainant failed to pay the installment regularly for which delay payment charges were calculated for 455 days as on 27.09.2012, again a credit card was issued to the Complainant at the time of Finance to avail fuel and a sum of 15815/- is showing as due against the using of the Credit Card and such he has violated the terms of the contract. The contract was expired on 20.01.2012 and the statement of account as on 27.09.2012 reveals that an amount of Rs. 1,05,385/- was due on the Complainant. According to the O.P. version no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the O.P. and allegation of deficiency in service on its part is not made out since the Complainant turned to be a defaulter.

3. The Complainant has failed to prove that he had paid full installment regularly to the O.P. He has filed only 15 Nos. of copy of receipt in which it is found that the Complainant had not paid the installment in time. As per the agreement executed by the parties cast irregular or delayed payment of the installments due by the borrower authorizes the O.Ps to charge additional interest at the rate specified in the schedule III, from the date of default till the date of payment. So in the part of O.P., no deficiency in service is found.

                   Hence it is ordered that the Complaint case of the Complainant is dismissed on contest without any cost.

          Order pronounced in the open court on 28^th June, 2022.

A free copy of the order may be supplied to the parties.