Orissa

StateCommission

A/272/2009

Brranch Manager, Shrachi Infrastructure Finance Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sabita Mohanta - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc.

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/272/2009
( Date of Filing : 23 Mar 2009 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 27/01/2009 in Case No. CD/172/2007 of District Kendujhar)
 
1. Brranch Manager, Shrachi Infrastructure Finance Ltd.,
At- New Market, Keonjhar.
2. Branch Manager, Magma Srachi Infrastructure Finance Ltd.,
Plot No. 363, Rupali Traffic Square, Sahid Nagar, Infrnt of IDCO Tower, Bhubaneswar.
3. HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Retail Assets Collections, 4th Floor, Narayan Properties, Chendivali, Andheri East, Mumbai.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Sabita Mohanta
W/o- Lambodhar Mohanta, Bala, Tato, Karanjia, Dist- Mayurbhanj.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. R.K. Pattnaik & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/s. B.S. Mishra & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 22 Dec 2022
Final Order / Judgement

                 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The case    of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant  has incurred loan from OP for Rs.7,36,156/- in the year 2007. It is alleged inter-alia that  complainant has paid Rs.6,33,120/- and there was outstanding of Rs.1,03,156/- which is  to be paid. But  he could not pay due to some unavailable circumstances.  The OP, without any prior notice forcibly seized  the vehicle on 21.11.2007 and sold away the  vehicle without any consent of the complainant. The complainant  got mental agony  and harassment and  as such  filed the complaint.

4.          The OP  filed written version stating that  as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the OP is empowered  to repossess the vehicle in the event  of default  of payment of loan. Since, the  complainant  defaulted  in payment of loan  dues, the OP after giving prior notice  has seized  the vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                 “  In the result, the dispute is allowed on contest against the Ops. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) towards cost of vehicle and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) for mental agony within a month from the case of the judgment. “

6.             Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering  the written version with proper perspectives. According to him,  there was prior notice of the seizure  and the sale issued to the complainant because he  is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan dues. Since, the amount was not paid, they have seized  and sold away the vehicle. Learned District Forum ought to have understood the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                       It is admitted fact that  the complainant had incurred loan from the OP to purchase the vehicle on 12.06.2005. It is admitted fact that the complainant was  in default  in  payment of Rs.1,03,156/-. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was seized by the OP on 21.11.2007. Now the question arises whether there is amount of arrear  issued under  prior notice  issued for seizure. The OP has not filed any agreement to show that the vehicle can be repossessed without any  notice. The case record does not disclose filing of  any notice prior to seizure of the vehicle. But there is a notice found in the record  to show that before sale the notice has been issued to the complainant. When  seizure is not proved  with due notice, it must be held in absence of any agreement that the seizure of the vehicle without any  prior notice is itself illegal. When  the seizure of  the vehicle is illegal,  sale of vehicle is also illegal. Therefore, we are of view   that the OP has  committed error  in law by disposing  of the vehicle, thereby we agree with the finding of the learned District Forum.

9.             Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that loan amount was Rs.7,36,156/- but the compensation has been awarded for Rs.10,00,000/- and  same should be  considered by modifying the impugned order. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and found that  the vehicle has  run for more than 2.5 years after which  it was seized and sold. Not only this but also   the record shows that there is outstanding of 1,03,156/- on the date of seizure  against the complainant. When there is such  outstanding loan amount against the complainant but  the compensation is allowed  at higher side, we find there is force with  the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Considering all such aspects, while  affirming the finding  in impugned order, we modified the  impugned order   by directing the OP not to claim any arrear amount against the complainant but to  issue NOC within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of this order. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 12 % per annum   from the date of order till realization.

                    Appeal is partly allowed. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.

                    

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Sudhiralaxmi Pattnaik]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.