Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/99/2020

Durga Sankar Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

SREI Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N.C.Dash

03 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JAGATSINGHPUR
JAGATSINGHPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/99/2020
( Date of Filing : 17 Jul 2020 )
 
1. Durga Sankar Das
Vill-Binjharpur Ps-Binjharpur
Jajpur
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SREI Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Managing Director
Office at - Vishwakarma 86c TOPSIA Road Kalkata-700046
2. SREI Equipment Finance Pvt Ltd Branch Mnager
At-HIG-1 Gangadhar Meher marg Jayadev vihar BBSR-75100 Khurda
3. Branch Manager Vijaya Bank
At-IFFCo Chhak Po-Paradeep
Jagatsinghpur
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 03 Mar 2023
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER BY HON’BLE MEMBER- MRS. M. SWAIN:

                                                                                                JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 not to repossess the machine (Excavator), supply a copy of the loan agreement, current account statement and to reschedule the rest part of the loan after calculating the same in the agreed rate of interest and to exonerate the complaint any other unnecessary charges and not to misutilize the cheques which were with them and to pay compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is permanent resident of Binjharpur, Jajpur and presently reside at Paradep, Jagatsinghpur work for gain. The complainant has experience in excavation work and decided to purchase an excavator to earn his livelyhood and to maintain his family out of the income by plying the excavator. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 sanctioned Rs.47,94,827/-in the month of 1st week of October as against the invoice amount of Rs.52,70,000/- and the complainant also invested the rest as margin money and after purchase the vehicle the complainant make it fit for running. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 send the insurance pa per through mail at the end of December, 2018 and till then said excavator remain idle and due to illness and due to heavy rain and flood in the river the machine could not able to move from the river side and surrounded with water and became idle for pretty long time about six months and in the month of January the machine got repaired and the complainant could not able to pay three installments in time till shut down/ lock down period for Covid-19 and in the period of lock down the machine became work less. For that reason the complainant intimated to the opposite party No.2 orally and requested to reschedule the loan amount and to fix a lesser amount for each installment but complainant remain in dark till date and the same has not been clarified by the opposite party No.1. All of a sudden on 09.7.2020 without any notice/ intimation the muscle men of opposite parties No.1 & 2 reached at the resident of the complainant and tried to repossess the excavator by use of force and due to mechanical problem the excavator could not be started and they threatened the complaint that they will repossess the vehicle very soon after making minor repair of the machine.

            Opposite parties No.1 & 2 in their written version stated that, they have not committed any illegal action as contended by the complainant. The complainant has falsely stated that the opposite parties finance company is attempting to seize the asset without any justifiable reason and without taking recourse of law and without any notice. While it is true to the extent that the complainant has purchased the above asset by availing finance from the opposite parties, but it is not true that the same has been purchased by the complainant for earning his livelyhood and to maintain his family. The complainant has availed financial facility from the opposite parties for purchasing the above vehicle in question for earning more profit in his business, not for earning his livelyhood. To bring him within the scope/ purview/ definition of the “Consumer”, the complainant has stated false/ untrue facts in his complaint petition. The complainant was the owner of 04 nos. of heavy commercial construction equipments and he has other business activities as well and he wanted to purchase the instant vehicle by availing finance from the opposite parties company to use the same on rental basis for earning more profit in his business. The complainant himself admits that the opposite parties finance company has sanctioned Rs.47,94,827/- against the invoice amount of Rs.52,70,000/-, which exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this learned Forum. So, the instant consumer complaint case is not maintainable. 

            The revised pecuniary jurisdiction for entertaining consumer complaint shall be up to Rs.50 lakh for District Commission in the Notification dated on 30th December, 2021.

            In this present complaint the invoice amount of the asset is Rs.52,70,000/- for which this Commission lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction. Hence we dismiss the consumer complaint. Accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed without any cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MADHUSMITA SWAIN]
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.