Orissa

Jajapur

CC/310/2012

Sri Kailash Chandra Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Sri Ram Transport Finance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ld.Adv

27 Mar 2015

ORDER

                               IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:  1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President,

                                                                        2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                        3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.

                                       Dated the 27th day of  March,2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.310 of 2012

Sri Kailash ch.Rout  

S/O  Sukadev Rout

Vill. Kanheipur – Samantaray colony,

P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road, Dist.Jajpur.                                                               …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.M/S Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd,1^st floor Near Saraswati Talkies

     In front of Kalinga Xaviour Hostel-By-pass Road, Jajpur Road,Dist. Jajpur.

2. Manas Kumar Dhal, S/O Raichand Dhal,At.Mundamal,P.O/P.S. Jajpur Road

    Dist . Jajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                 Sri M.K. Mallick,Sri B.K. Mohanty, Sri J.Sahu, Sri N.Dash

                                                    Mrs.D. Solanki, Sri P. Mishra, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.1           Mr.J. Patnaik, Mr. R.K.Sahu , Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.2           None.                                                                                   

                                                                             Date of order:   27. 03. 2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed the present dispute  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

                        The facts shortly as stated by the petitioner in the complain petition are that the petitioner for self and family employment purchased a Tipper bearing No.0R-02-W-7217 after availing loan of Rs.3,20,000/- from the O.P no.1 and for availing such loan the petitioner has executed hypothecation agreement with the O.P no.1. As per term and condition of hypothecation agreement the petitioner is required to repay the loan along with interest amounting to Rs.4,10,720.00 as against the financed loan amount of Rs.3,20,000/- . It is alleged by the petitioner that as per term and conditions of hypothecation agreement (1) though the O.P no.1 is reuired to disburse Rs.3,20,000/- to the petitioner but practically the O.P. no.1 has disburse Rs.2,97,000/-.

                        As per repayment schedule though the petitioner is required to repay Rs.4,10,720.00 in between 01.12.2006 to 01.10.2009 but the petitioner has paid Rs.3,85,605/- in 21 installments in between 01.12.2006 to 31.12.2009 as against the actual financed amount of Rs.2,97,000/- which indicates that the petitioner has paid Rs.88,605/- towards interest as against the claim of O.P no.1 of Rs.90,720.00 towards interest . As such though the O.P. no.1  is no way entitled to get further amount against the loan availed by the petitioner but the O.P. no.1 arbitrarily has not issued the N.O.C against the financed vehicle, for which the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.P no.1 to issue N.O.C or to direct the R.T.O ,Chandikhole to remove hypothecation from the R.C book of the alleged vehicle as well as not to seize the alleged vehicle.

                        There are two nos. of O.Ps. in the present dispute . The O.P no.2 has not appeared and did not choose to file written version. Hence, he has been set exparte vide order dt.10.04.13.   After appearance the O.P no.1 has filed the written version wherein the O.P. no.1 not only has denied the allegation of the petitioner but also has taken the stand that :

1. The petitioner has availed Rs.3,20,000/- as loan for purchasing the vehicle bearing No.0R-02-W-7217 by executing Loan- Cum-Hypothecation agreement and as per term and condition of hypothecation agreement though the petitioner is required to pay Rs.4,10,720.00 in 35 installments in between 01.12.06 to 01.10.2009 but the petitioner has paid only Rs.3,44,093/- .
2. In addition to it the petitioner also has availed a personal loan of Rs.1,05,000/- on 03.04.2009 which is required to be paid in seven installments with interest.

3. Further the petitioner is a defaulter and at present there is outstanding dues against the   petitioner for which the petitioner is no way entitled for N.O.C until the outstanding dues is cleared up by the petitioner .

                        As such the dispute is liable to be dismissed .

                        In view of the above contradicting views of both the parties we are inclined to come to our conclusion owing to facts and circumstances of the present dispute as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) CPR108-SC.

1. It is stated by the petitioner that as against the sanctioned amount of loan of Rs.3,20,000/- practically the O.P. no.1  has disbursed Rs.2,97,000/- but the O.P. no.1 in the written version states that Rs.3,20,000/- has been disbursed as loan amount.
2. The petitioner in the complaint petition states that he has paid Rs.3,85,605/- but the O.P. no.1  in the written version vide para-4 page-3 states that the petitioner has paid Rs.3,44,093/- and in addition to it the petitioner has availed a personal loan of Rs.1,05,000/-.

                         In the above narrated situation we have come across with the observations of Hon’ble National Commission and Odisha State commission stated below:-

1.1998(3)CPR-28-NC

                        “ Any dispute relating to account is civil dispute “.

2. 2008(2) CPR-1-NC

“ where detail evidence is required the complaint can not be decided by   Fora since it deals with summary proceeding  .

3. C.C. Case No.43/2010 –Odisha (Susant  ku. Acharya Vrs. Magma Finance )

“ O.P is claiming more the complainant is stating he is to pay lesser    amount. This being purely account matter the consumer For a or Commission can not decide the same.

4. 2012(1)CPR-317-Ranchi

“ The petitioner is not entitled for N.O.C unless financed amount is paid  back”.

                        Owing to the above narrated situation we dispose of the dispute as per order stated below since this Fora  lacks jurisdiction to decide the same.

                                                                  O R D E R

                         In the result the dispute is disposed of. While disposing the dispute we are in the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to approach Civil Court if he so likes. No cost.                                  

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                          

                                                                                                         (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

 (Shri Biraja Prasad Kar )                                                                         Member.                                                                       

            President.                                                              Typed to my dictation & corrected by me

                                                                                   

                                                                                        

 (Miss Smita Ray)                                                                        (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

       Member.                                                                                          Member.