Orissa

Cuttak

CC/31/2021

Dipak Kumar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram City Union Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

P R Behera

04 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.31/2021

            Dipak Kumar Das,

S/O:Mr. Bidyadhar Das,

At:Nima Sahi,P.O:Buxibazar,

PO.S:Purighat,Near Seba Hospital,

Dist:Cuttack..                                                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Manager Director,

Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

123 Angappa Naicken Street,Chennai-600001.

 

2.        Authorized Officer,

Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

123 Angappa Naicken Street,Chennai-600001,

State:Tamil Nadu.

 

3.       Branch Manager,

Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

Ganjanan Complex,

Khata No.1205/521,Dolamundai,Cuttack.... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.02.2021

Date of Order:  04.05.2022.

 

For the complainant:          Mr. P.R.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps :                       Mr. M.D.Riaz,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

            The case record is put up today for orders.

            The case of the complainant in short is that with an intent to start a business for earning his livelihood and to be self-employed, he had approached the O.Ps for sanction of loan of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Accordingly, the loan was sanctioned vide loan agreement No.CUTAKTF1809240003 dt.24.9.2018 in favour of the complainant.  The complainant alleges in his complaint petition that he was asked to sign on various blank papers.  Since because the complainant could not purchase new vehicle for transportation on hire basis of vehicle he had sustained huge loss in his business so also due to Covid-19 pandemic lock down and shut down he suffered loss.  Ultimately he had to wind up his business on 31.4.2020.  The loan amount was sanctioned which was to be repaid within a tenure of 36 months but the complainant is yet to receive either the loan agreement or the statement of account from the O.Ps.  The complainant paid the instalment dues with effect from 7.11.18 @ Rs.8686/- per month but due to financial stringencies the complainant could not regularly pay the instalments to the O.Ps.  He had approached O.P No.3 for providing him the statement of account but he was threatened to be sent demand notice and will be prosecuted for non-payment after declaring his account as N.P.A. as he was a defaulter.  The complainant further has stated that even though he had paid 9 instalments, he was issued demand notice by the O.Ps on 5.11.2020 in spite of his request to the O.Ps for providing him further time to repay through his representations dt.20.8.19,15.4.20,18.6.20 and 5.2.21 for which ultimately the complainant has approached this Commission seeking redressal and has prayed for direction to the O.Ps in order to reschedule the loan account No. No.CUTAKTF1809240003 dt.24.9.18, together with a prayer to waive the interest penalty additional interest charged against the said loan account of the complainant.  The complainant has further demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards his mental agony and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation cost.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to the their written version, the complaint petition being untenable in the eye of law is liable to be dismissed and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint petition since because; according to them, the complainant is not a consumer as because he had availed a business loan for commercial purpose.  The O.Ps admit about the complainant availing a loan from them to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- in the year 2018 in order to repay the same in 36 monthly instalments @ Rs.8686/- with effect from 7.11.18 to 7.10.19, @ Rs.5211/- with effect from 7.11.19 to 7.10.20, @ Rs.3474/- with effect from 7.11.20 to 7.10.2021.  The O.Ps have denied to have obtained the signatures of the complainant in any blank papers.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant is a wilful defaulter who has a concocted story with the intention to waive out the interest etc.  The O.Ps have further urged that an amount of Rs.1,89,717/- is still pending requires to be cleared up by the complainant.  They also denied about the payment of 9 instalments by the complainant or to have been threatened by them.  They have not committed any deficiency in service.  Thus according to the O.Ps, there was no unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as claimed.

            According to the O.Ps, the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.81,063/-.   Hence the balance is yet to be paid by him.  The matter was referred to Arbitration also.  As such the O.Ps have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version as well, this Commission thinks it proper to adjudicate the following issues here in this case.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act?

            iii.        Whether the complainant had cause of action to file this case?

iv.        Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition.

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.2.

            For the sake of convenience, issue no.2 be taken up first for consideration.  As it appears from the case, the complainant has filed the complaint petition on 19.2.21 and has clearly mentioned to be seeking redressal U/S-35 of C.P.Act,2019. He had availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the O.Ps for earning his livelihood as he has so mentioned in his complaint petition.  He has also specified that in order to become self-employed he had availed the loan.  Thus, contention as raised by the O.Ps regarding the complainant availing a business loan for commercial purpose does not hold good and the complainant here in this case definitely falls within the ambit of consumer as envisaged in the C.P.Act,2019.  This issue is thus answered in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant.

Issues No.1 & 4.

            Now issues no.1 & 4 be taken up together for the sake of convenience.  It is the plea of the O.Ps that the matter was referred to Arbitration but no award of any arbitrator has been filed, so as to refrain this Commission from taking any action in this matter.  So it can never be said here in this case that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition as filed and the case cannot be said to not to be maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues are answered.

Issue No.3.

            The complainant has consistently urged that in spite of his repeated requests to the O.Ps, he was never provided with the correct account statement or even the agreement copy so as to take proper action of repayment at his end.  To such plea, the O.ps have vehemently have denied that if ever the complainant had approached for those to them.  The complainant has not filed a scrap of document in order to show that in fact he had made endeavour to obtain account statement from the O.Ps, to obtain copy of the agreement as executed by him and to show that he was actually interested to repay the instalments.  Thus it can never be said here in this case that the complainant was willing to repay the loans and rather it can be said that the complainant was a wilful defaulter.  Hence this Commission is of view that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  This issue is thus answered in the negative and against the complainant.

Issue No.5.

            Keeping the above discussions in mind it can never be said the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him in the complaint petition from the O.P.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                                 ORDER

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

 Order pronounced in the open court on the 4^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

 

                                                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

 

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.