Orissa

Cuttak

CC/110/2021

Pradeep Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

RTO,Cuttack - Opp.Party(s)

A C Rath

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.110/2021

1.            Pradeep Kumar Mohanty,

S/o: Alekh Chandra Mohanty.

 

2.            Mrs. Kaberi Mohanty,

W/O:Pradeep Kumar Mohanty.

Bothare resident of At-04,Nityananda Sahoo Colony,

Aparna Nagar,P.O/P.S:Chauliaganj,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                           ... Complainants.

         

                                                Vrs.

1.        Registering Authority,Office of R.T.O,Cuttack.

 

2.         Authorised Signatory of CHOLA MANDALAM,

                              Investment & Finance Company Limited.,

       Head Office At:No.2,N.A.C BOSE Road,Chennai-600001.                  ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    28.07.2021

Date of Order:  24.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. A.C.Rath,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P. No.1.    :                   None.

For the O.Ps No.2 :                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 the complainant Pradeep Kumar Mohanty had purchased a Bolero by obtaining finance from the O.P No.2 wherein his wife Kaberi Mohanty (complainant no.2) was the guarantor.  The complainant no.1 had purchased the said Bolero for maintaining his livelihood and thereby had entered into an agreement No.XSHUCUT00002341841. He had  received Customers ID No.92722124 and 9158718.  The O.P No.2 had financed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- but due to Covid situation because of denial of the BMC,Bhubaneswar and also CMC,Cuttack, the Bolero of the complainants could not ply, as a result of which they have sustained huge loss for which they became defaulter in paying regular E.M.Is to the O.P No.2.  It is for this, O.P No.2 had repossessed the vehicle through his henchmen at Link Road on 7.3.21 while the vehicle of the complainants was carrying passengers to Puri.  The O.P No.2 had transferred the vehicle to his name even though the vehicle registration certificate reflects the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OR-05AP-3573 to be in the name of the complainant no.1.  Thus, the complainant has filed this case seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.50,000/- towards business loss alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint.

            He has filed xerox copies of certain documents to prove his case.

2.         On the other hand, out of two O.Ps, O.P No.1 having not contested this case has been set exparte but O.P No.2 has contested this case and has filed written version.  As per the written version of O.P No.2, the vehicle was repossessed after observation of due process of law only when the complainant became defaulter in paying the E.M.Is.  Thus, there was no deficiency in service.  The O.P No.2 admits about the loan advanced to complainant no.1 to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- which was to be repaid in 43 number of instalments with effect from 28.4.18 to 28.10.21 @ Rs.6,923/- payable on 27^th of every month.  The complainants had further availed an additional loan amount of Rs.27,267/- from O.P No.2 vide Agreement No.XVFPCUT00002901210 dt.31.3.2021.  When the complainants were defaulted, notice was issued to them on 7.10.2020 but they had not responded, the vehicle in question was repossessed on 7.3.21 by taking recourse of law.  Pre-sale notice dt.12.3.21 was not even responded by the complainants for which O.P No.2 had auctioned the vehicle after observing all the legal formalities and it is the contention of O.P No.2 that even after appropriating sale proceeds, a sum of Rs.21,288/- is due from the complainants, thus there was no deficiency in service and O.P No.2 has thereby prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with exemplary cost.

            The O.P No.2 has also filed xerox copies of some documents in order to prove his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version of O.P No.2, 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 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?

Issue No.ii.

            This issue being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant no.1 is a loanee having obtained finance for purchase of his Bolero from O.P No.2 to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- and he also admits to be a defaulter for which his vehicle was repossessed by O.P No.2  The complainants are silent about the second loan as obtained by them from O.P No.2.  On perusal of the case record and the available copies of documents therein, it is noticed that infact the complainants were defaulter in paying the regular E.M.Is and thus there was a breach of the agreement as entered by them with O.P No.2 which enabled O.P No.2 to repossess the vehicle as per breach of the agreement and after observing the legal formalities the vehicle was auctioned.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service noticed as alleged by the complainants in this case.  Thus issue is accordingly answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

            As per the above discussions, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainants is maintainable and they are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them and this Commission observes that the complainants have wilfully with malafide intention have filed this case fraudulently.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.P No.2 and exparte against O.P No.1 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th  day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member.