Orissa

Cuttak

CC/39/2017

Santosh Kumar Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ram Transport Finance Co Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B Tripathy

05 Aug 2017

ORDER

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

C.C No.39/2017

 

Santosh Kumar Padhan,

At/PO:Kantapada,P.S:Govindpur,

Dist: Cuttack.                                                                                 .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.        Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

Plot No.5,2^nd Floor,Mahanadi Vihar,

Near ICICI Bank,Cuttack.

 

2.        Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.,

123, Angappa Naicken Street,Chennai-600001.

 

3.         Administrative Officer,

Sri Ram Transport Finance Company,

Shrachi Tower,2^nd Floor,

Unit-A & B,686,Anandapur,E.M By-pass near

Railway Station,Kolkata-700107.                                                      … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    25.03.2017

Date of Order:  05.08.2017

 

For the complainant  :    Sri D.K.Swain,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :   Sri P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant has filed the above complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

1. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the O.Ps refinanced an old vehicle(truck) in favour of the petitioner in the year 2014 with loan amount of Rs.2,63,000/-.  The petitioner purchased the said vehicle for maintenance of his livelihood and plied the same as well as paid the E.M.Is regularly.  The petitioner paid back the installments up to Octoaber,2016.

The vehicle of the petitioner met with an accident in the month of November,2016 for which he could not pay two installments for the month of November and December,2016 in proper time.  The petitioner intimated the same to the O.P No.1.  On the other hand the O.P No.1 engaged some unruly elements who threatened and tried to take away the vehicle.  Due to the highhanded action of the O.Ps, the petitioner was not able to ply the veh9icle.  But the O.ps engaged antisocial elements and dragged the vehicle into their custody forcefully on 11.01.2017 without any reasonable cause.

The petitioner further alleged that he ran to the office of the O.P No.1 for release of his vehicle and the O.P No.1 assured to release his vehicle after taking approval from the head office but on 11.3.2017 issued a sale notice to the petitioner and threatened over telephone to sell the vehicle.  Due to the negligence and deficiency in issuance of “No due certificate”,. The petitioner sustained huge loss and suffered mental harassment. Finding no other way, he has taken shelter under this Forum.  He has prayed for a direction to the O.ps to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner and pay Rs.2.00 lakhs as compensation.

2. The O.ps entered appearance through their lawyers and filed written version.  The case of the O.ps is that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the case as there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and the parties agreed for the same the dispute shall be decided by the Arbitrator.

The further plea of the O.Ps is that petitioner was using the vehicle for commercial purpose by employing driver as such he is not a consumer and the petitioner has also filed a false affidavit that he has made payment of entire amount including interest, but actually the complainant has paid only Rs.88,308/- against dues of Rs.4,82,478/-.

The O.Ps further stated that the complainant approached the O.ps to finance him for a  Ashok Leyland and after deliberation O.Ps agreed and a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement was executed under which a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- was sanctioned with financial amount charges on the same amount is Rs.1,60,766/-.  The total agreement value of Rs.3,91,766/- is repayable in 40 monthly installments starting from 20.8.2014 to 20.11.2017.  The petitioner when failed to repay the loan amount, the O.P No.3 sent notice requesting to pay the loan amount with interest but he did not pay the outstanding dues.

3. We have heard the counsel for both the parties, went through the records and perused the documents and papers.  It is an admitted fact that the O.Ps financed for purchase of the truck and an agreement was executed and it was agreed between the parties that the entire amount will be paid back in 40 installments.  But the petitioner has not produced any document that he has paid the entire amount including the interest.   Besides that the petitioner has not approached this Forum with clean hands rather he has contradicted his own version.  Even the petitioner has not clearly stated about the quantum of loan, rate of interest and number of installments agreed upon and exact amount repaid by him with proof.  So the case has no merit.

ORDER

Basing on the facts and circumstances as stated above it is observed that the petitioner failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence the case is dismissed.

                Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 5^th    day of August,2017  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                        Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                           President.

                                                                                                   (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                              Member