Orissa

Cuttak

CC/17/2022

Aparti Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Nayak & associates

06 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.17/2022

Aparti Rout,

S/O:Late Manguli Rout,

Resident of At:Rama Nagar,P.O/P.S:Khuntuni,

Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                                                                    ... Complainant.

             

                                                Vrs.

1.         The Chairman,

M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd.,

At:Dare House-2,N.S.C.Bose Road,Parrys Chennai-600001,India.

 

2.        The Regional Manager,

M/s. Cholamandalam Finance and Loans Branch,

At:Sreemaa Construction,3^rd Floor,

Naya Chowk,Link Road,

P.O:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                                      ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    31.01.2022

Date of Order:  06.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            MrS.K.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

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

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                             

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that she had purchased a truck alongwith co-borrowers from the O.Ps bearing Regd. No.OD-05BB-5440 with Chassis no.MBINACFC4FPDM6550 &  Engine no.FBPZ111835 after getting refinance for an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- on 28.2.2021 vide through vehicle loan agreement no.XHUAAH00004050407.  She had paid down payment of Rs.4,50,000/-.  As per the letter of the O.Ps dt.3.1.2022 interest paid certificate in her name reflected a sum of Rs.3,17,552/- to have been paid by her with interest of Rs.1,74,342/- for the financial years 2020 to March,2021.  She was a regular payer of the loan amount.  Since because the former purchaser of the said truck could not pay the loan amounts regularly, the truck was seized by the financier and thereafater the complainant had purchased the same after getting refinance from the O.Ps.  During the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the vehicle of the complainant could not ply on the road for which  she could not earn her livelihood.   On getting threaten for legal action, the complainant had approached the O.Ps and had made representation dt.17.12.21 for reconsideration of the situation but the said representation was not given attention by the O.Ps.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case claiming compensation towards her loss of business to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- from the O.Ps along with a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her mental agony and  further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  She has also prayed seeking direction to the O.Ps, more specifically to O.P No.2, in order to consider her representation as given on 17.12.21 and to extend one year time enabling her to clear the outstanding instalments.

            The complainant has filed certain copies of documents in order to prove her case.

2.         On the other hand, both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version conjointly.  According to the written version of the O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  The O.Ps in their written version have stated that as per the prayer of the complainant if allowed it could amount to re-writing of the contract which has already been entered into by the parties to this case.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant had defaulted in paying a sum of Rs.39,682/- towards the instalments and a sum of overdue amount of Rs.12,492/-.  Thus an amount of Rs.52,174/- is receivable from the complainant by the O.Ps as on 27.4.2022.  Accordingly, they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

            The O.Ps have also filed copies of documents in order to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out from the complaint petition and that of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the complainant has a cause of action to file this case?

            ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issue no.iii.

            Issue no.3 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly the truck in question which was purchased by the complainant, was earlier purchased by another person who had defaulted in paying the instalments.  It is also admitted that after obtaining finance, the complainant had purchased the said truck in question.  The complainant herself admits about she being a defaulter in paying the instalments due to the pandemic situation.  Her case is that, she is being threatened by the O.Ps to be dispossessed from the ownership of the truck as because she is a defaulter of the instalments due to them from her.  This apprehension as mentioned by the complainant is not at all supported by any cogent evidence in order to appraise this Commission that if it was a fact.  Moreso, when there is lack of evidence as regards to the threaten as assumed by the complainant, this Commission cannot come to a conclusion that infact the O.Ps are at fault and were deficient in their service towards the complainant.  This issue is thus, answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i,ii & iv.

            The rest of the issues are taken up together here.  From the above discussions, when it is not made out that the O.Ps wee deficient in their service and when the complainant seeks direction from this Commission to the O.Ps to provide her extension of one year time enabling her to clear the dues which she owes to the O.Ps, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to pass any such order in that light.  As such, this Commission holds that there was no cause of action made out for the complainant to file this case and this case can never be said to be maintainable.  Accordingly she is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 6^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                       Member