Orissa

Cuttak

CC/189/2023

Pradipta ku Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C K mohanty

02 Feb 2024

ORDER

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

C.C.No.189/2023

 

Pradipta Kumar Rout,

S/o: Late Bhaskar Rout,

Plot No.1268,At:Mahanadi Vihar,

P.O:Nayabazar,P.S:Chauliaganj,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                     ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,                                                                                                                                      4^th Floor,Mahindra Towers,

Dr. G.M.Bhosale Marg,P.K.Kurne,

Chowk,Worli,Mumbai-400018,

Represented through its Managing Director.

 

2.       Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1^st Floor,Unit-1,Nandighosh Arena G.A-1,

Plot No.1246,Bapuji Nagar,Bhubaneswar-751009,

Dist:Khurda, represented through

Its Branch Manager.                                                        … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    05.06.2023

Date of Order:  02.02.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. C.K.Mohanty,Advocate.

For the O.Ps              :            Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.      

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President       

Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition in short is that he had availed finance to the tune of Rs.18,27,000/- from the O.Ps in order to purchase a Tata LPT 3718/68 BS IV truck for earning his livelihood in the month of February,2020.  The said Tata truck bearing Regd. No.OD-11E-2230 thus was owned by the complainant and the loan incurred by him was to be repaid in 53 numbers of E.M.Is @ Rs.53,520/-.  The O.Ps had not provided the statement of account to the complainant though he had asked for the same from them on several occasions.  Due to Covid-19 pandemic situation, there was no proper business and the vehicle of the complainant was off-road.  The O.Ps are threatening to seize the vehicle of the complainant and had charged interest by enhancing the loan amount.  When the complainant made a request to consider his plight, the O.Ps had refused to have any sympathy for him for which the complainant has filed this case seeking an order of permanent restrainment against the O.Ps so as to restrain them from seizing/repossessing his aforesaid truck  and to pay him a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment.  He has also prayed for an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the O.Ps towards cost of his litigation and has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their joint written version.  As per the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  The O.Ps admit to have provided finance to the complainant in order to enable him to purchase a Tata truck and while doing so, the complainant had entered with them into a Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement which had certain terms and conditions therein.  As per the said terms and conditions, the loan amount of Rs.18,27,000/- as incurred by the complainant was to be repaid by him in 52 number of instalments.  Due to the out-break of Corona, the moratorium period benefit was given to the complainant from April,2020 to August,2020 but after that the complainant also started defaulting in paying the instalments.  The loan tenure was from 10.3.2020 to 10.6.2024 and the E.M.I was @ Rs.53,520/-.  Due to the moratorium benefits, the last five E.M.Is were re-fixed to be @ Rs.1,02,287/- per month.  The complainant was an intentional defaulter who had defaulted in paying 27 number of instalments as on 26.6.2023 and thereby the outstanding arrear amount was of Rs.1,44,137/- alongwith late fine charges of Rs.6,05,109/-.  There was also bounce charge of Rs.590/-.  It is for the said reason, a demand notice was sent by the O.Ps on 15.10.2022to the chronic defaulter/complainant of this case asking him to regularise the  loan account and subsequently. When no response was made by the complainant, termination notice was issued to him on 7.11.2022.  As per the terms and conditions of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement executed in-between the complainant and the O.Ps of this case,  as per clause-14 of  the said Loan agreement, the Lender shall be absolutely entitled to exercise all or any of its rights “including taking possession, Disposal and Holding NOC of the product there of under any of the Borrower agreement(Including this agreement) with the Lender at the sole discretion of the Lender, so there is no point of discussion that the complainant is not aware of the clause which is already been accepted by the complainant husband while executing the loan agreement”.  It is for the said reason, the O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed since because, according to them, the complainant had suppressed the material facts and has not approached with clean hands before this Commission. 

          The O.Ps have also filed copies of several documents alongwith their written version in order to support their stand.

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 here in this case.

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 ?

Issue no.ii.

For the sake of convenience, issue no.ii  is taken up first to be considered here in this case since because it is a pertinent issue.

After perusing the contents of the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submission as filed by the O.Ps as well as the documents available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant had incurred loan to the tune of Rs.18,27,000/- from the O.Ps for purchasing a Tata LPT truck bearing Regd. No.OD-11E-2230 and had agreed to repay the said loan as per the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement executed in-between himself and the O.Ps.  It is alleged by the O.Ps that the complainant became chronic defaulter even after availing the moratorium benefits and thus was found to be defaulting for 27 number of E.M.Is for which the complainant being a borrower had violated the terms and conditions of the said Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement for which the O.Ps had issued demand notice to him on 15.10.2022 and also finally the notice of termination was issued by them to the  borrower/complainant on 7.11.2022.  When the complainant is found to have breached the terms and conditions of the Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement, the endeavours made by the O.Ps in order to repossess the hypothecated vehicle appears to be within the ambit of law and thus cannot be termed to be a deficiency in their service.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the O.Ps.

 

 

 

Issues no. I & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief 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 2^nd day of February,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                  Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member