Orissa

Cuttak

CC/161/2021

Saroj Kumar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Cater Pillar Financial Service India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Choudhury & associates

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

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

                                                                      C.C.No.161/2021

Saroj Kumar Nath,Proprietor,

M/s. Basanti Transport MIG-18,Housing Board Colony,

Charbatia,Choudwar,Cuttack,Odisha-754028                ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.         Authorised Officer,

M/s. Caterpillar Financial Service India Pvt. Ltd.,

6^th Floor,Tower ‘B’ Pretige Shantiniketan,The Business Precinct,

        Whitefield Main Road,Bengaluru,Karnataka-560048.    

 

2.         Authorised Officer/Representative,

M/s. Caterpillar Financial Service India Pvt. Ltd.,

C/O:Gainwell Commosales Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No.2132/5140 BJB Nagar,

Lewis Road,(Near Gautam Petrol Pump),

Bhubaneswar-751014,Odisha.                                                                ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    30.09.2021

Date of Order:  06.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. A.K.Choudhury,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps :                               None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that the complainant in order to earn his livelihood for himself  and his family had approached the O.Ps to avail a loan for purchasing one Excavator machine and thereby had entered into an agreement with them on 29.8.20.  The cost of the said machine was of Rs.61,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.54,90,000/- was paid by the O.Ps to the complainant which was to be repaid in 46 E.M.Is @ Rs.1,43,190/-/  The said machine was insured.  The complainant had thus repaid an amount of Rs.4,29,420/- upto June,2021 but on 1/4/21 due to the misfortune of the complainant a mob had damaged the said machine of the complainant which he had intimated at the Police Station as well as to the insurers and the O.Ps.  The quantum of loss was assessed to be of Rs.3,55,966/- as estimated on 7.4.21  The O.Ps had seized the said machine on 20.7.21 at Sonepur since because the complainant was a defaulter in paying the E.M.Is.  In this connection, the complainant had knocked the door of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha.  The complainant has further mentioned in the complaint petition that the Central Govt. as well as the Reserve Bank of India had relaxed the payment procedure of the outstanding loan during the pandemic Covid-19 period but ignoring the same, the O.Ps had seized his Excavator machine at Sopnepur for which he has filed this case praying to declare the said seizure by the O.Ps to be illegal, seeking further direction from this Commission to the O.Ps in order to pay him a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month from the date of seizure due to the loss of income.  He has also claimed a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and harassment together with the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.30,000/-.  He has further prayed for an amount of Rs.1,07,404/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the O.Ps along with any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            In order to support his case the complainant has filed the copies of documents showing the finance as obtained by him, the purchase of the Excavator machine and the expenses as incurred.

2.         The O.Ps having not contested this case were set exparte vide order dt.12.5.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

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

Issues no.i & ii.

            Issues no.i & ii are taken up together first for consideration here in this case.  The complainant by filing this case has alleged that ignoring the relaxation as made by the Central Govt. as well as by the Reserve Bank of India towards the repayment procedure of outstanding loan, the O.Ps had illegally seized his Excavator machine when he defaulted to pay the E.M.Is as per the conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement.  The complainant has not filed any circular/Govt. orders or even the order of the R.B.I in order to appraise this Commission that infact the Govt. had relaxed by laying certain procedures towards the repayment of the outstanding loan during the pandemic Covid-19 situation.  In absence of the same, this Commission comes to a conclusion that since because the complainant had defaulted in paying the E.M.Is and thereby had violated the terms and conditions of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, his vehicle was taken away by the O.Ps and thus it cannot be said here that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and that the case of the complainant is maintainable.  Accordingly, these two important issues go against the complainant. 

Issue no.iii.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said here that the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                            ORDER

The case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.