Orissa

Cuttak

CC/102/2021

Ramesh Chandra Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Hero Finance Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M B Das

06 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.102/2021

 

          Ramesh Chandra Behera,

          S/O: Late FakirChandra Behera,

          Resident of Jobra(Majhi Sahi),

          P.O:CollegeSquare,P.S:Malgodown,

           Dist:Cuttack.                                                                         ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.       Ms. Hero Financial Corporation Ltd.,

Corporate Office at -09 Basantlok,

Vasantvihar,New Delhi-110057,

Represented through it’s Managing Director.

 

2.      Branch Head cum Area Manager,

Ms. Hero Fin Corp Ltd,,

At:Plot No.54 & 55/01 Baramunda,

P.S/P.O:Nayapally, Town:Bhubaneswar,

                   Dist-Khurda

 

3.      Manager Customer Care,

Ms. Hero Financial Corporation Ltd.,

(Hero Fin Crop Ltd.) Corporate Office at-09 Basantlok,

Vasantvihar,New Delhi-110057.                                                    ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    16.07.2021

Date of Order:  06.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. M.B.Das,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :            Mr. D.P.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                               

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a Balena Zeta Car of Maruti Suzuki Company on 27.3.2017 after obtaining finance from HDFC Bank Ltd.,Cuttack.  But as because he could not clear the dues to the financier, he thought of refinancing the same and accordingly a sum of Rs.9,46,418/- was refinanced towards his used Car bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AA-8030 and  for the said purpose O.P no.2 had taken away all the documents from him.  The complainant was paid Rs.4,00,000/- on 23.2.2020, Rs.4,85,000/- on 16.3.2020 and Rs.23,000/- on 7.4.2020.  Accordingly, the complainant was paid Rs.9,08,000/- out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.9,46,418/- which was to be paid by him at a stretch.  Out of the remaining amount of Rs.38,418/-, Rs.10,000/- was disbursed in his favour on 7.12.2020.  The complainant through his mail on 11.12.2020 had requested the O.P no.3 to disburse the balance amount of Rs.28,418/- and also to hand over the registration certificate book etc corresponding to hisCar bearing Regd. No.OD-05-AA-8030.  To the contrary, O.Ps had sent notice on 18.6.2021 to the complainant which was received by the complainant on 7.7.21 wherein the complainant was threatened to pay of the total sanctioned loan amount within seven days or they would prefer Arbitration proceeding.  It is for this, the complainant has come up with this case seeking a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards compensation for their unfair trade practice, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment, another sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of his social prestige and further a  sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of his litigation.

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

2.       All the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version wherein they have stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.  According to them, the complainant had approached them for refinance of Rs.9,46,418/- towards his used Maruti Suzuki Baleno Car and the said amount was disbursed by them accordingly vide  loan agreement no.CTKRUC00100005314416 for the vehicle of the complainant bearing Regd. No.No.OD-05-AA-8030.  The complainant had agreed to all the terms and conditions of the said agreement and to repay the loan in 36 number of instalments each amounting to Rs.23,015/- starting from 28.2.2020 till 8.12.2025.  The sanctioned loan amount was of Rs.9,46,418/- out of which the insurance amount and processing fee were deducted for which the rest amount of Rs.9,32,599/- was disbursed to the account of the Direct Sale Agent.  Accordingly on 2.3.2020 a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was sent through RTGS followed by an amount of Rs.4,85,000/- on 16.3.020 through RTGS.  Again on 7.4.2020 another amount of Rs.23,000/- was sent through F.T.  Again on 7.12.2020 another sum of Rs.11,000/- was sent through F.T.  The RTO expenses of Rs.3099/- was paid and the rest amount of Rs.11,500/- was paid to the complainant directly.  When the complainant became defaulter in paying the E.M.Is as financed, the O.Ps had proceeded legally to repossess the vehicle and thus there was no deficiency in their service nor they have practised any unfair trade as alleged.  Accordingly, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

          The O.Ps have also filed evidence affidavit through one Prakash Kumar Swain who in his evidence affidavit has only reiterated the averments as made in the written version.

3.      Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.Ps, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

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

Issue no.II.

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

While perusing the copies of documents as filed on behalf of the complainant in this case, it is noticed that Annexure-6 is the copy of the loan recall notice for termination of the loan agreement no.CTKRUC00100005314416 dt.18.6.2021.  There the O.Ps have specifically mentioned about the breach of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by the complainant.  The complainant is silent about the violation of the terms and conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement which he had executed while obtaining the refinance loan from the O.Ps.  Thus, when he had failed to repay the monthly instalment of the said loan as agreed upon through the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement no.CTKRUC00100005314416 dt.18.6.2021, the O.Ps had issued him notice and had  proceeded against him as per law.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service of O.Ps here in this case and also this Commission fails to find practice of unfair trade by the O.Ps.  Accordingly, this issue is answered against the complainant.

Issues 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 entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

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 6^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.   

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

 

                                                                                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                     Member