Orissa

Cuttak

CC/95/2014

Kailash Mangaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

13 Apr 2017

ORDER

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

                                                                                    C.C. No.95/2014

Kailash Mangaraj,

Res. of At/PO:Paradeep Garh,

P.S:Pparadeep,Dist:Jagatsinghpur.                                               … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

1.  Branch Manager,

 Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

At Mahanadi Vihar,,PO:Nayabazar,Cuttack

 

2. Managing Director,

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Regd. Office:123,Angappa Naicken Street,Channai.                                … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:   Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   17.07.2014

Date of Order: 13.04.2017.

 

For the complainant:            Sri A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For Opp.Parties 1 & 2:         Mr. J.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

.

 

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service rendered and unfair trade practice followed by them and seeking appropriate relief in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case reveal that he has purchased a truck of Ashok Leyland make bearing Regd. No.OR-05L-6815 being refinanced by O.P.1 vide loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No.CUTT 10210050002 dt.5.10.12. The amount advanced by O.P.1 for the purpose is to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/-.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the registration certificate of the said vehicle.  The complainant is therefore liable to pay total amount of Rs.3,65,851/- including interest in 33 no. of E.M.Is  as specified in the repayment schedule vide Annexure-2 starting from 5.11.12 till 5.7.15.  The complainant also paid E.M.Is regularly.  According to the repayment schedule from 6.11.12 to 28.6.14 and total amount of EMIs paid by the complainant was Rs.2,14,400/-.  The copies of money receipt obtained towards repayment of EMIs have been filed and marked as Annexure-3 series.
2. It is important to leave a mention here that the total amount of E.M.Is due for payment by June,2014 was Rs.2,74,399/- but the complainant has paid by the end of June,2014 only rs.2,14,400/-.  In subsequent months also full E.M.Is could not be paid by the complainant because of the fact that there was complete ban on transportation of iron ore by the Govt. in the State of Odisha where the vehicle of the complainant was engaged in transportation of such iron ore and the said vehicle had been off the road till the date of filing of this case.  In such a situation, the complainant has repeatedly approached the O.P. to reschedule the E.M.I dues but the latter was not inclined in any manner to help the complainant.  It is stated that the O.Ps rather attempted to take repossession of the said vehicle at a place near Jagatpur,Cuttack on 4.6..14 creating a fear in the mind of the complainant which has caused undue harassment and hardship to him.  The act of the O.Ps is as such tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.  Having no alternative he lodged this complaint against them with a prayer to give necessary direction to the O.Ps to reschedule his loan amount, to pay Rs.25,000/- to him towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused to him and also to pay the cost of litigation  in the interest of justice.
3. The O.P.2 neither appeared nor participated in the proceeding and as such he is set exparte.  The O.P.1 entered appearance and filed written version of his case stating therein that the case is not maintainable both in fact and law and there is also no cause of action to file the case.  It is also stated that the allegation made by the complainant against the O.Ps does not fall within the purview of C.P.Act and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  It is denied that the complainant has ever requested the O.P.1 for rescheduling his E.M.Is.
4. The specific stand taken by the O.P.1 in his written version is that there was delayed payment of EMIs by the complainant for which extra charges have been levied and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,81,947/- is still outstanding against him.   The copy of the statement of account of the complainant as on 30.7.14 has been filed and marked as Annexure-A/1.In the above premises, it is prayed that the complaint is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.
5. During course of hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the O.P.1 has filed the statement of account of the complainant as on 4.8.16 and it is found that a total amount of Rs.1,18,250.44p is outstanding against him.  Copy of the said statement of account has been filed and marked as Annex-C/1.
6. We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant and of the O.P.1.  We have also gone through the documents marked as annexures produced by both the sides respectively.  Exhibit-C/1 which is the statement of account of the complainant as on 4.8.2016 reveals that total amount outstanding against the complainant is Rs.1,18,250.44p towards charges for delayed payment.  As against it, the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has paid Rs.32,000/- over and above the charges made by the O.P.1. as peer agreement.  This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the O.P.1.  In that view of the matter according to learned counsel for the O.P.1, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.86,250.44p but his counterpart fairly submits that the complainant is undergoing much financial hardship and unable to make payment of outstanding amount of Rs.86,250.44p.  However it has been amicably settled between them and the complainant has agreed to pay Rs.15,000/- only to O.P.1 towards charges for delayed payment of EMIs.  It is not objected to by the learned counsel for O.P.1.  So far as the other reliefs prayed by the complainant are concerned, they are not seriously insisted upon.  Hence the ordered;

ORDER

The complainant is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- only to the O.P.1 towards charges of delayed payment of EMIs to close his loan account.    In such a situation the prayer of the complainant for rescheduling the payment of E.M.I by the O.Ps is not tenable.  There is no order on other reliefs prayed by the complainant since they are not seriously contested.  The case is accordingly disposed of on contest against O.P.1 and exparte against O.P.2.  This order shall be given effect to within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 13^th     day of April, 2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                    President.

                                                                                                            (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                  Member.

                                                                                                      (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                Member(W)