Orissa

Cuttak

CC/395/2023

Ratikanta Samantaray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Toyota FinancialServices India Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

30 May 2024

ORDER

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

C.C. No.395/2023

            Ratikanta Samantaray,

S/o: Fakir Charan Samantaray,

At present residing in the house of Digambar Bhol,

Post Office Lane,OTM Labour Colony,

Choudwar,Dist:Cuttack-754025.                                         .... Complainant.

 

                      Vrs.

 

Toyota Financial Services India Ltd.,

Represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Corporate Office:No.21,Centropolis,

                    1^st Floor,5th Cross,Longford Road,

Shanti Nagar,Bangalore-560025.                              ….Opp. Party.

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.12.2023

Date of Order:  30.05.2024

 

For the complainant:             Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :             Mr. R.C.Panigrahi,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

 

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to earn his livelihood he had purchased a Maruti Swift Dzire car by obtaining finance from the O.P.  The said vehicle was registered vide Registration number OD-02-BS-6184.  While obtaining the said loan of Rs.6,47,169/- on 30.6.2021, the complainant had entered into a Loan-cum-Hypothecation agreement with the O.P vide Agreement number MBBN1207799.  It was agreed therein that the loan was to be repaid by the complainant to the O.P in 60 number of instalments @ Rs.14,233/- which was effective from 14.7.2021 to 14.7.2026.  The complainant was repaying the EMIs but the O.P threatened the complainant to repossess the vehicle without any reason and ultimately, on 12.11.2023 the O.P repossessed the vehicle of the complainant.  The complainant has further stated that he had paid more than Rs.3,13,126/- towards the instalments for his loan and he is willing to pay the balance amount also but the O.P all on a sudden had sent a fore-closure notice dated 17.11.2023 asking him to pay a sum of Rs.5,36,911/-  or else he would sell the vehicle of the complainant.  So the complainant has come up with his case before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.P towards his mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards his litigation expenses.  He has also sought for direction to the O.P for releasing his repossessed vehicle under terms and conditions.

Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant in order to prove his case has annexed copy of the fore-closure notice as sent to him by the O.P.

2.       The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has admitted about the loan provided to the complainant of this case thereby enabling him to purchase his vehicle.  It is alleged by the O.P that the complainant had failed to make regular payments of the instalments in due time for which the matter was referred to an Arbitrator under the provisions of Sec-17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996.  The learned Arbitrator had appointed the office of the O.P as receiver to take possession of the vehicle in question.  By virtue of the said order of the learned Arbitrator the vehicle in question was repossessed on 12.11.23.  Thereafter fore-closure notice was sent but the complainant had not responded.  The O.P has relied upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are as follows:

i.          in the case of Bharti Knitting Company Vs. DHL Express Courier (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein it was held that when the complainant signs the contract documents, he is bound by is terms and conditions and the onus would be on him to prove the terms and the circumstances, in which he has signed the contract.  He is bound by its terms and conditions of the contract.

ii.         In the case of Magma Fincorp Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari-Civil AppealNo.5622 of 2019 dated 1^st October 2020).

iii.        In the case of Manohar Singh Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. [IV (2009) CPJ 271] & also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Fincorp Limited. Vs Rajesh Kumar Tiwari- Civil AppealNo.5622 of 2019 dated 1^st October 2020).

Thus, according to the O.P, the vehicle was repossessed basing upon the terms of the loan agreement since because the complainant had failed to pay the EMIs.  The complainant was also given an opportunity through the fore-closure notice to clear the arrear amount and get back his vehicle but no action was initiated from the side of the complainant who had rather preferred to remain silent. It is thus urged by the O.P through his written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          Together with the complaint petition, the O.P has filed copies of several documents in order to support his stand.

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

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

Issue no.II.

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

After perusing the complaint petition, written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both sides as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that the O.P had infact provided finance to the complainant enabling him to purchase his Maruti Swift Dzire car and while obtaining the loan the complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.P where he had agreed to clear the loan amount on regular monthly instalment basis.  As it appears from the available documents on record, the complainant became a defaulter for which the O.P had preferred to place the matter before the Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator had appointed the office of the O.P as receiver.  Accordingly, the vehicle of the complainant was repossessed on 12.11.23 and a fore-closure notice dated 17.11.23 was sent to the complainant asking him to clear the arrear outstanding dues of Rs.5,36,911.74p, but without doing so the complainant has come up with his case before this Commission.  Since when the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and had executed the said agreement, he is bound by the conditions therein.  When he became a defaulter by not paying the EMIs regularly, the O.P had acted as per law and had repossessed the vehicle.  Thus, this Commission finds that there is no deficiency in service noticed in any manner as alleged by the complainant against the O.P of this case.  This issue thus goes against the complainant.

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 made by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                              ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 30^th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

 

                                                                               Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                       President

                     

 

                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                             Member