MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed C.C.Case No. 26/2023 seeking following relief;
“ Honbl’e Commission after hearing from both parties may kindly be directed to the Op-Bank to pay the compensation amount as claimed in Para-14 and not to repossess the AL-3718 BS-IV, bearing No. OD-05-AH-8655 belongs to the Complainant and settle the matter and to exonerate the complainant from paying any other charges and also direct the Op-No.4, (RTO) not to change the ownership on the same Vehicle. Further prayed that the Op-Bank pay the compensation for his mental agony and litigation expenses as deem just & proper and not to misutilize the blank signed cheques of SBI Paradeep Bazar Branch and return the signed blank cheques of Indusind Bank, Cuttack bearing No.857931,857932 & 857933. The Op No. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,56,500/- along with interest as deem just and proper”.
Brief facts for the Complainant is that, after purchase of the vehicle AL 3718 BS-IV, OD-05-AH-8655, the Complainant went on paying the EMI’s regularly but due to outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19, the vehicle of the Complainant remain idle for which the Complainant could not be able to earn and pay some EMI in time for which the Op No.1 to 3 pressurized the complainant for recovery of loan outstanding amount on the vehicle OD-05-AH-8655 inspite of knowledge of the difficulties of financial condition of the complainant during CoVID-19 Pandamic period till March-2022. Due to the financial stringency of the Complaint for repayment of the loan amount to the Op. Party financer, the op financer pressurized the Complainant to avail a COVID Loan and adjust the unpaid EMI of the vehicle OD-05-AH-8655 and further told the Complainant that they shall finance in the existing rate of interest and told the Complainant that they shall finance in the existing rate of interest and told the Complainant to open a S/B Account with their “Indusind Bank” Cuttack and Complainant opened a S/B A/c in Indusind bank, Cuttack bearing A/C No. 100142608437 and the Op Financer sanctioned a loan of Rs. 6,47,000/- in the name of the Complainant and transferred the same to the S/B Account, the Op Financer, took 04(four) numbers of blank signed cheque bearing No. 857931,857932,857933, and 857934 from the Complainant in the above S/B Account on the plea that the amount of COVID loan amount of Rs. 6,47,000/- would be adjusted towards the un-paid EMI towards the loan advanced against the vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8655 and OD-05-AH-8577 (these two vehicles purchased on finance through the Op No.1 to 3). The Op-Bank by utilizing the blank signed cheque No. 857934 given by the Complainant, has withdrawn the amount of Rs. 6,47,000/- from S/B A/C No. 100142608437 but only adjusted a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- against the loan outstanding of vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8655 and adjust a sum of Rs. 1,46,500/- against the loan outstanding of vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8577, in total the Op financer adjusted a sum of Rs. 2,90,500/- out of withdrawal amount of Rs. 6,47,000/- and misappropriate the amount of Rs. 3,56,500/- without the knowledge of the Complainant. On dt. 15/11/2022 the Op Financer without serving any notice to the complainant regarding the amount of loan outstanding and other aspects of COVID loan with proper calculation, when demanded to repay the entire COVID-19 loan amount of Rs. 6,47,000/- and the EMI amount outstanding against the vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8655 and OD-05-AH-8577, the complainant obtained a statement account of the loan amount of the vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8655 and OD-05-AH-8577 and after obtaining the statement account, the Complainant became astonished that the Op No.1 to 3 financer after adjusting a sum of Rs. 2,90,500/- towards EMI of vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8655 and OD-05-AH-8577 have not deposited the balance amount of Rs. 3,56,500/- in the S/B account No. 100142608437 and have misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 3,56,500/,so it is a clear case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Op.No. 1 to 3, which needs interference of this Commission.
Complainant is the owner of two vehicles and maintain livelihood from the said vehicles only because of his Co-borrower with some other person it can’t be said that he is the sole owner of those vehicles as such the same plea of Ops is not acceptable. The Ops have also raised that the C.C.Case is not maintainable as the loan agreement contains the clause for arbitration and territorial jurisdiction. By way of agreement the power of this Commission can’t be taken away. It clearly stipulated in the C.P.Act, 2019 U/s 34(2) as follows;
(2) a complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-
(a) the Op or each of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the Ops, where are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the district Commission is given; or
(c ) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arise : or
(d) the Complainant resides or personally works for gain.
As such this Commission has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as the Complainant is residing within Commission’s jurisdiction which is not disputed. Arbitration proceeding has not been initiated in the present case for which merely because of the agreement the clause for arbitration was mentioned, the Jurisdiction to entertain can’t be taken away and this Commission can’t sit idle. The matter would have been different if the proceeding under Arbitration and conciliation Act, would have been initiated.
The main contention of Complainant is that due to COVID-19 he could not repay the loan and he availed COVID-19 loan of Rs. 6,47,000/- out of which Rs. 1,44,000/- has been adjusted against vehicle No. OD-AH-8655 and Rs. 1,46,500/-adjusted towards vehicle No. OD-05-AH-8577. Thus Rs. 2,90,500/- has been adjusted against loan out of Rs. 6,47,000/- and Rs. 3,56,500/- has been taken away by the staff of Ops to which the Ops are not disputing. In our considered opinion such act of Opp.Parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
We therefore direct the Ops to deduct Rs. 3,56,500/- against two vehicles dividing equally against the loan from the date of loan was sanctioned and recalculated the loan. The Ops are free to recover the same from officials at fault. The Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of each vehicle/case towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for cost of litigation and further it is directed that the above said amount can be adjusted by the Ops against the loan amount and give three (3) months more time to repay the loan amount if any. The C.C.Case No. 26/2023 is allowed and accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 19th day of July,2023.
I, agree
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
