Orissa

Jajapur

CC/85/2015

Basanta Kumar Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,M/S SriRam Transport Finance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                              Dated the 23rd day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.85 of 2015

Basanta Kumar Kar, S/O Late Ananda Ch. Kar

Vill-Ampura, Po-Kendupara,

P.S-Bhadrak (Rural) Dist.-Bhadrak.

At present At-Gopalpur, P.S-Cuttack Sadar, Dist.-Cuttack.                              …….. Complainant.

                               

                                                (Versus)

1. M/s. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. having its office

              At-4^th Floor, “A” Wing Aggrawal Trades Centre,    Sector-11,

             CBD Belapur, Navy Mumbai-400614, Maharastra.represented  by its

             Managing Director.

 

      2.   The Branch Manager,Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Chandikhole Branch,

            At-1^st Floor, Nayak Building, Room No.1 & 2,Po-Sunguda, Chandikhole chowk

            P.S-Chandikhole, Dist.-Jajpur-755024                                                                                           …….O.Ps.   

                                                                              

For the Complainant:                          Sri L.D.Nayak,Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                           Mr.P.K.Ray,Advocate and associates.                                                                                                   

                                                                                                          Date of order:  23.10.2017.

SHRI PITABAS  MOHANTY,  MEMBER  .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner  .

             The fact relevant  shortly  as per complaint petition is that the petitioner purchased a TATA LFT 2515 TORBO FBT  bearing Regd. No.0R-04-F-6505  taking financial assistance of Rs.3,90,000/ from the o.ps. on the strength of hypothecation agreement. As per terms and condition of the loan agreement the loan amount with interest shall be repaid within 43 monthly equal  installments   beginning from 5.8.12 to 05.02.16 . Accordingly  the petitioner paid the EMI regularly .

            Though the petitioner  has already paid Rs. 5 lakh  to the O.Ps but the  outstanding against the vehicle indicates was Rs,2,70,348/- and for such purported  and illegal demand by  the O.Ps and their field staff and representative repeatedly threatened the petitioner to seize the vehicle .  On 03.10.15 the filed staff of O.Ps threatened the petitioner that if he would not clear up the outstanding amount within 7 days they will seize/ repossess  the vehicle .  Thereafter the petitioner tried to make all  possible efforts for settlement of the illegal claim of the O.Ps but the  O.Ps  demanded to clear up the entire demanded outstanding amount against the loan . Accordingly finding no other alternative the petitioner knocked the door of this Fora with the prayer to direct the O.Ps  not to take any coercive action for recovery of their purported claim amount of Rs.2,70,348/-   or to seize / repossess  the vehicle.

After notices the O.Ps appeared through their learned  advocate  and subsequently filed their written version  taking following stands:

1.That the present complaint is not maintainable  in eye of law .

That the petitioner  approached the O.Ps  to finance him for a  TATA LPT 2515 FBT  model truck and after detail deliberation on quantum of finance , the loan- cum- hypothecation agreement bearing No.CHNDIO206290007  dt.30.06.12 was executed and   an amount of Rs3,90,000/- was sanctioned with financial charges thereon  was Rs .2,05,863/- and the net agreement value comes to  Rs. 5,95,863/ which was repayable in 43 monthly installments starting from 5.8.12 to 05.02.16 at the rate of interest Rs. 13,825 per month save and except the 1^st installment  which is Rs. 15,213/-. Besides,  the petitioner has availed 3 working capital loans of Rs.28,645/- , 26,330/ and 26,939/-. In all these loans  the petitioner  had paid only  Rs. 5,00,050/-.  As on dt.                 he is  liable to pay Rs…………….towards EMI and Rs. ………………towards delayed payment charges and Rs……………….towards future  installments . The demand shown in the complainant’s loan account is genuine and calculation is clearly reflected in account  statement . It  is not to submit here that the petitioner has made payment in very irregular manner from the  very initiation  of the loan agreement. Therefore he is liable to pay the delayed  payment charges in the terms of the agreement. It is submitted  that the alleged threat by the  staff of the O.P  is false  and baseless and the same is here by  denied .  There is nothing wrong if the sales/  executive of the O.P had ever visited the house of the petitioner as the same is routine  business practice  of the company to remind the defaulter borrower  about their contractual obligations  /liabilities  in order to facilitates  the  collection of the loan dues.  The O.P  is entitled to take possession of the  of the financial vehicle / assets as the borrower / petitioner is a defaulter and law in this regard is well settled  that the financer is entitled to get repossession of the financial assets . Hence there is no deficiency of service or no unfair trade practice is attributed in such action of the financer . Hence it is prayed that the learned forum in exercise of the power conferred on this U/S 26 of the Act may be pleased to dismiss this frivolous complaint with exemplary cost .

On the date of hearing,  we heard the argument from the learned advocate of  both the sides . and after perusal of the record and documents in details we observed that :

1 it is undisputed fact that the petitioner purchased the above vehicle taking financial assistance from the O.Ps on the strength  of hypothecation agreement .

2it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner subsequently became a  defaulter in repayment of EMI in time and for this the O.Ps  representatives  visited  the house of the petitioner to recover  the defaulted amount.

3 In the mean time it is also undisputed fact that the petitioner prayed on the  original C.C.Case and in the petition U/S  13(3b) of C.P.Act  to direct the O.Ps not to take any coercive action against the vehicle to  recover  the illegal outstanding amount as demand by the O.Ps .Thereafter this fora vide its order dt.8.10.15  directed  the O.Ps not to take any coercive action against the vehicle till appearance of the O.Ps.  Thereafter during the pendency of the dispute the petitioner fails to establish his case by filing any appropriate  documents  or any citation that the above amount claimed by the O.Ps as outstanding  amount  is  illegal demand .

In the above circumstances it is  admitted fact that the petitioner is a defaulter and he fails to pay the EMI in time of the above vehicle to the O.Ps.  And as per agreement the O.Ps / financer can take steps or to take possession  of the financed vehicle as per law. Hence it is our considered view that there is no deficiency  of service on the part of the O.Ps.

            In view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble State Commission reported in 2011(3) CPR-113-N.C, R.P.No.1178/2006 –N.C ( Surendra Kumar agarwal Vrs.Telco Finance  & others) , 1(2009) –CPJ-502-Union Teretory ( Ramesh ku.Sharma vrs.Kotak Mahindra Primus  Ltd, , 2006-CTJ-209-S.C(M.D  Orix Auto Finance India ltd Vrs. Jagmander Singh & another ) , there is much force in the submission of the O.Ps.

O R D E R

Hence the C.C.Case  is dismissed  against the O.Ps on contest . No cost.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 23rd day of October ,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.