View 7877 Cases Against Transport
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 1584 Cases Against Shriram Transport Finance
Subodh Chandra Nayak filed a consumer case on 16 Oct 2015 against Manager ShriRam Transport Finance Co.Ltd in the Jajapur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/5/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 04 Nov 2015.
IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.
Present: 1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President
2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,
3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.
Dated the 16th day of October,2015.
C.C.Case No.05 of 2015
Subodh Chandra Nayak S/O Ugrasen Nayak
Vill/ P.O-Pangata,P.S.Dhusuri
Dist.-Bhadrak. …… ……....Complainant . .
(Versus)
1.Manager,Shriram Transport,Finance Company Ltd, 123, Angappa, Naukenstreet, Chennai
2. Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd, At/P.O- Chandikhole
Dist.-Jajpur. …………………..Opp.Parties.
For the Complainant: Sri P.K.Samal,Sri P.K.Das,Sri C.R.Ojha,Advocates.
For the Opp.Parties : Sri P.K.Ray,A.R.Sethy,P.K.Mohapatra,Advocates. Date of order: 16. 10. 2015.
SHRI PITABAS MOHANTY, MEMBER .
The petitioner has come with this complain petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. since the O.Ps are trying to repossess the vehicle forcibly.
The facts of the dispute in short is that as per complaint petition the petitioner had purchased a Tractor bearing Regd. NO.0R-09-E5414 to maintain his livelihood under Hire Purchase Agreement from the O.Ps. on 18.01.2008 by availing the loan of Rs.4,20,000/- .
The repayment time fixed by the O.Ps was from 15.07.2008 to 15.10.2011 i.e 45 installments . That the petitioner has already paid Rs.3,12,000/-and on account of break down of the vehicle., the petitioner was unable to pay the next amount including O.D.C in due time. As a result the O.Ps have sent a default notice on 01.07.10 to the petitioner for the first time.
That the cause of action arisen on 01.01.2015 when the O.P no.2 has made an attempt to repossess the vehicle forcibly but the petitioner managed to escape from the O.Ps. no.1.
Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. not to repossess the vehicle since the petitioner is ready to repay the entire dues as per law.
The O.Ps. have appeared through their learned advocate and filed the written version denying the allegations of the petitioner as well as have stated:
On the date of hearing we heard the argument of learned advocate of O.Ps. After hearing we have perused the record along with documents of both the parties in details.
In our considered view the petitioner has purchased a vehicle taking financial help from the O.Ps. under Hire purchase Agreement and admittedly the petitioner is a huge defaulter so also the agreement period already over since from last four years.
Basing on the pleadings and documents available on record and prayer of the complaint petition we are declined to grant such prayer of the petitioner since it violate the guide line of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2006-CTJ-209-S.C(M.D Orix Auto Finance India Ltd Vrs. Jagmandar Singh & another)wherein it is held that:
‘ In case of default re-possession of the vehicle clearly permissible in terms of the Hire purchase Agreement.’
O R D E R
In the result the dispute is dismissed . No cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of October,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Shri Biraja Prasad Kar) (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
President. Member.
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Miss Smita Ray)
Lady Member. (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)
Member.
.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.