Orissa

Cuttak

CC/132/2022

Pradipta Kumar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,L & T Finance - Opp.Party(s)

S G Dash & associates

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.132/2022

 

Pradipta Kumar Rout,

S/O:Late Bhaskar Rout,At:Mahanadi Vihar,

P.O:Nayabazar,P.S.Chouliaganj,Cuttack-753004.                 ... Complainant

 

                                                                Vrs.

1.                     L & T Ltd., represented through its Manager,

Near Bijaya Dhaba,P.O:Banapur,P.S:Cuttack Sadar,

Cuttack.

 

2.                      Sonthalia Motors Pvt. Ltd.,

At:Kanika Chhak near Petrol Pump,

P.O:Tulsipur,Cuttack-753008.... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:       Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

                 Date of filing:     04.07.2022

Date of Order:    16.12.2022

 

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

For the O.Ps.             :           None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President. 

The case of the complainant as made out in the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had purchased a motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OD-05AT-1766 by obtaining finance as per hire purchase scheme with O.P no.1 and had paid down payment of Rs.8000/-.  While his employee Rakesh Kumar Sahu had gone to Jagatpur in order to purchase some articles, the henchmen of O.P no.1 without intimating anything to the complainant had forcibly taken away the motorcycle of the complainant from the possession of the employee of the complainant and had also stolen cash of Rs.12,338/- which the complainant had given to his employee.  Though they had shown seizure of the said motorcycle but had not reflected about the cash as taken by them to the tune of Rs.12,338/-.  The complainant has further mentioned in his complaint petition that he is ready and willing to repay the remaining three E.M.Is.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case seeking an amount of Rs.18,338/- and additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and interest thereon with effect from 28.6.2022 till the total amount is quantified.  He has also demanded cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and has prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

In order to prove his case the complainant has filed copies of documents with his complaint petition.

2.         Having not contested this case, the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.16.9.2022.

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?

The complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit which when perused appears to be the reiteration of the complaint petition.

 

Point No.ii.

Out of the three points, point no. ii being the pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition and perusing the copies of documents as filed here in this case by the complainant, it is noticed that three E.M.Is were not paid to the O.Ps by the complainant and the complainant has expressed his willingness that he is ready to pay the defaulted amount.  Be that as it may, law is quite clear that the O.Ps  in this case being the financiers are never service providers and the loan agreement in-between the financier and the loanee complainant is based upon certain terms and conditions, breach of any of such terms and conditions of it will entitle repudiation of the agreement and thereby enabling the financier to repossess the financed vehicle as it appears here in this case.  When the complainant could not pay the three E.M.Is and had defaulted there was definitely breach of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement for which the O.Ps had repossessed the financed motorcycle of the complainant as per the prescribed provision of law.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service as alleged against the O.P here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

 

 

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 16^th day of December,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                   Member