Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/86/2014

Larik Yadav S/O-Laxmi Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Npr Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

D.K.Jain

08 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

                                        

                           CONSUMER  COMPLAINT  CASE NO. 86 OF 2014

 

 

Larik Yadav ( 24 Yrs.),

S/O: Laxmi Yadav,

R/O: Kabristhanpada,

PO/PS/ Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………..……………. Complainant.

     

                                           Versus 

 

NPR Finance Limited,

Registered Office at Todi Mansion,

1, Lu-Shun Sarani, 9^th Floor,

Kolkata- 700 073.

Branch Office at Plot No. 3-404,

Nayapali, Bhubaneswar,

Dist: Khurda, Odisha..……………............................................................. Opp. Parties.

 

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                         Shri D.K.Jain, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Parties                          Shri S.K. Harichandan, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 08.12.2014

 

Present

      

                                                                                                                                          1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.

                                                                                                                                          2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                                                                                                                          3. Smt.A. Nanda, Member(W).

 

                                                                               

Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member :- The complainant’s case in brief is that, he has purchased one Piaggio Auto Rickshaw bearing Regn. No.OR-15-P-8689 from one Deep Joyti Motors of Jharsuguda which has been financed by the O.Ps for Rs. 1,10,000/- only.  The complainant was liable to pay the loan amount @ Rs.6,300/- only in 25 nos. of EMIs. and  @ Rs.570/-only in 10 EMIs. each, commencing from dtd. 10.09.2010 to 10.07.2013 which the complainant was paying the monthly installments regularly. The complainant has paid all the monthly installments except Rs.100/- only and the overdue interest for nominal delays taken place in payment of some EMIs.  The O.Ps on dtd. 17.10.2014 have repossessed the said vehicle of the complainant forcefully without informing to the complainant.  The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps as the O.Ps have never intimated about the dues against the said vehicle to the complainant and without any information the O.Ps have repossessed the vehicle, as such the complainant has been deprived from his daily earnings of Rs.400/- only approximately per day along with mental agony. The complainant filed this case praying for proper adjudication of the matter along with relevant documents and citations.

      

Being noticed, the O.P Company entered its appearance through their counsel and filed written version.  The O.Ps denied all the allegations imposed by the complainant except the fact of finance.   The O.Ps submitted that the complainant has never paid installments in due time and filed one statement of accounts dtd. 28.11.2014 which reveals that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.67,697/- only in total including Rs.7,600/- towards EMIs., Rs.51,481/- only towards over dues and other charges.  The O.Ps also submitted that a case has been filed U/s-138 N I Act against the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.  

 

            Heard and perused.

 

The complainant by being a student, belongs to a poor family, in order to meet the day to day requirements of his family and to maintain his educational expenses, purchased one auto rickshaw through finance scheme.  The O.Ps. have financed the vehicle of Rs.1,10,000/- only which the complainant was liable to pay @ Rs.6,300/-only each for 25 nos. of  installments and @ Rs.570/- only for 10 nos. of installments.  The O.Ps. have issued 02 nos. of statement of accounts , the first one dtd. 18.05.2012 with duly sealed and signed (issued to the complainant, the original attached with the case record), the other one submitted by the O.Ps. as Annexure A/1 dtd. 28.11.2014 without endorsement of any seal and signature. Both the statements varied to each other on dates of receiving the EMIs. and amounts. Followings are the differences and misrepresentations found on perusal of both the statement of accounts as :-

 

1. In original statement of accounts dtd. 18.05.2012 (issued to the complainant, filed by the complainant) the O.Ps have mentioned that, the date of first installment as dtd. 10.09.2010 amounting Rs.6,300/- only  which has been received on the same day but in the other statement filed by the O.Ps dtd. 28.11.2014 the date of first EMIs is dtd. 11.09.2010 amounting Rs.8,800/- only which has been received by the O.Ps on dtd. 25.09.2010.

 

2. In the statement filed by the O.Ps.dtd. 28.11.2014 the 25^th nos. of EMIs. has been received by the O.Ps on dtd. 28.11.2014 amounting Rs.4,400/- only which the complainant has never paid as the case has filed on dtd. 24.10.2014 and after wards the complainant has never paid any amount to the O.Ps.

 

3. All the due dates in the original statements dtd. 18.05.2012  are of 10^th of each month but in the statement filed by the O.Ps. dtd. 28.11.2014  it has been mentioned 11^th of each month.

 

4. There are differences of receiving EMIs. in every month started from dtd.10.09.2010 in comparison to the original statement issued to the complainant and the statement filed by the O.Ps.

 

5. In the statement filed by the O.Ps, the O.Ps. have mentioned overdue charges @ 36% but failed to prove  whether both the parties have ever agreed on the said rate of interest.

 

 

Apart from the above mentioned misrepresentations, the O.Ps. also failed to prove whether they have issued any prior intimation to the complainant regarding dues amount and / or information prior to seizure of the vehicle. The complainant has filed a relevant citation of Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi of a case between B. Narsimha Vrs. The R.T.A & Ors.,bearing R.P.No. 4478 of 2009, reported in 2012 (1) CPR-375(NC) wherein it has been held  tha , “ vehicle cannot be repossessed without notice” . 

 

            In view of the above mentioned observations and analysis, it is found that, the O.Ps. have performed several unlawful activities against the complainant in providing appropriate details of accounts regarding repayments of EMIs. of the complainant. Subsequently, the O.Ps. have also repossessed the vehicle of complainant without any prior notice, which is illegal and arbitrary. All such activities of the O.Ps. reflects towards commitment of gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant by the O.Ps, hence, we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint petition with directions to the O.Ps. in the form of order as follows:-

 

ORDER

 

1. The O.Ps are hereby directed to release the vehicle bearing Regn No. OR-15-P-8689  in favour of the complainant within 07(seven) days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

2. The O.Ps are hereby further directed to pay Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred) only  per day towards reimbursement of financial loss of the complainant from the date of seizure i.e. dtd.17.10.2014 to till the date of release of the vehicle.

 

3. The O.Ps are hereby furthermore directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) only towards mental agony, harassment and cost of the case to the complainant along with closing of the loan account against the vehicle bearing Regn No. OR-15-P-8689 of the complainant by waiving out the outstanding dues if, any. 

 

4. The above mentioned order No. 2 & 3 are to be carried out within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps shall be liable for interest @ 10% per annum on the abovementioned awarded amounts till realization.  

 

 

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

 

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 08^th   day of December 2014, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

 

                                                                                                 I Agree.                                  I Agree. 

                                                                                                          

                                                          Sd/- A.Nanda, Member (W)     Sd/-  S.L.Behera, President      Sd/- S. K. Ojha, Sr.Member         

                                                      Dictated and corrected by me.

 

                                                     Sd/-  S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member.