DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 19th day of June, 2019
C.D Case No. 124 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Subhalaxmi Sahoo
W/o: Sri Sibananda Sahoo
Vill: Padampur,
Po/Ps: Anandapur,
Dist: Keonjhar
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Represent through its Branch Manager, Jajpur Branch
1st Floor, Near Saraswati Talkies,
Chorda B-pass, Jajpur Road- 755019
2. Sanjay Kumar Sahoo
S/o : late Dayanidhi Sahoo
Vill: Morbali,
Po/Ps: Ghasipur,
Dist: Keonjhar
3. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
Representated through its Branch Manager, Bhadrak Branch
At/Po: Charampa,
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri A. K. Chand, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 1 & 3: Sri Ajay Kumar Swain& Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Set Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 27.03.2018
Date of order: 19.06.2019
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The complainant decided to run a transport business for which on 15.01.2011 he entered into an agreement with the OP No. 1 and received Rs 16,62,407/- towards advanced and agreed to repay the loan amount along with the interest in 45 installments. The OP No. 2 stood as a guarantor for which he has been impleded as a party. The complainant purchased a truck vide trade mark of Ashok Leyland and got it registered same in the office of the R.T.O, Keonjhar vide registration No. OR-09P-0616 on 04.03.2011. The complainant also obtained National Road Permit and insured the vehicle from time to time. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs 2,07,800/- was included margin money of Rs 1,53,595.00/-, insurance premium of Rs 38,869/- and other charges. The OP No. 1 has also issued receipt dt. 05.01.2011 showing to have received D.D No. 001473 dt. 30.12.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Chandikhol. The complainant states that the above amount is included in the advance amount of Rs 16,62,407.00/- but the OP No. 1 unscrupulously did not show in the statement of schedule of easy monthly installment where only insurance deposit is shown which is unfair trade practice in real term. As per the receipt issued by the OP No. 1 an amount of Rs 11,58,000.00/- was paid until 26.07.2013 against a sue of Rs 14,60,625/-. So when an amount of Rs 3,02,626/- more was to be paid till 26.07.2013 the OP No. 1 unscrupulously issued notice dt. 22.07.2013 demanding Rs 8,61,664/- which is very unfair. The complainant finding no other alternative sold a piece of land and deposited Rs 1,00,000/- on 26.07.2013.
The loan was to be liquidated on 20.10.2014. When there was 15 months more left to liquidated the left over loan amount of Rs 10,31,199/- the OP No. 1 took some signatures on some documents and without explaining the contents of the document enhanced the loan amount on 23.08.2013 to Rs 14,28,000/- and demanded to pay Rs 21,71,240.00/- by 05.08.2018. The complainant again paid Rs 2,59,700/- till 08.01.2015 and thereafter Rs 1,86,000/- till October 2016. The OP No. 1 has not issued any receipt of April to October 2016. The entire statement of account is unreliable. The complainant has paid Rs 15,93,700/- till October 2016. The above truck was returning to Ghasipura after delivering iron ore and taking load of rice from Charampa Rice Mill Bhadrak the truck was standing at Bonth Chhak, Bhadrak some people came in a Bolero and threatened the driver to get down from the truck and tried to darg him out of the truck by show of force. But the driver was rescued by some know people who were present there and on the interference of the local people of Bonth Chhak and passersby. The goondas of OP No. 1 left the place and threatened that they will forcibly take away the truck.
The cause of action of this dispute arose on 19.12.2016 when the goondas deployed by the OP No. 1 threatened the driver of the complainant to take forcible possession by show of force at Bonth Chhak, Bhadrak. The complainant has sought for following reliefs.
1. The OP No. 1 be permanently restrained from taking possession of the truck in question.
2. The OP No. 1 be further directed to render true and proper accounts.
3. The OP No. 1 be further direct to settle the matter in full and final settlement after receiving Rs 4,00,000/- or such amount to be decided by the Forum.
4. A further sum of Rs 40,000/- be given as compensation for humiliation and mental agony and a further sum of Rs 10,000/- be given as cost of litigation.
5. And such other relief be given which will be found to be just and proper by the Forum.
Documents relied upon the complainant (Xerox copy):-
1. The smart card and hard copy of registration certificate.
2. National Permit, Receipt fees, Authorization certificate, E-Receipt, Certificate of Fitness, Certificate of Policy, Emission Certificate.
3. The copy of company STFC.
4. The copy of repayment schedule.
5. Copy of summery of loan for vehicle No- OR-09P-0616.
6. Copy of letter dt. 22.07.2003.
7. Copy of letter dt. 17.09.2016.
8. Copy of loan payment receipts.
9. Copy of other document.
The OP No. 1 and 3 have preferred to file their written version analogously and follows.
The OP No. 1 and 3 have challenged the maintainability of this complaint. The OP No. 1 and 3 have submitted two no’s decisions with regard to the non-maintainability of this complaint such as Foods and Feeds Ltd. and others, in 2007 OLR(CSR) 38 and in another case C.C 43 of 2010 in the case of Sushanta Kumar Acharya Vs M/s Magma Finance Corporation Ltd. decide on dt. 19.05.2010. The O.Ps have also stated that in there written version that the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint before the D.C.D.R.F. The company to finance her for a ASHOK LEYLAND truck and after detail deliberation on quantum of finance, finance charges thereon, number of installments and installment amount etc. a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement bearing No. JJPURO308220004 dated 23.08.2013 was executed and an amount of Rs 14,28,000/- was sanctioned. The financial charges thereon was Rs 7,43,240/- and the net agreement value of Rs 21,71,240/- was repayable in 59 monthly installments starting from 05.10.2013 to 05.08.2018 @ Rs 36,650/- per month save and except the first installment which is Rs 45,540/-. Besides, the complainant has availed three working capital loans of Rs 35,589/-, 33,270/- and 35,149/-. In all these loans the complainant had paid only Rs 5,44,500/-. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the answering OP humbly submits that no ‘deficiency’ in service is attributable to any action of the answering OP and in absence of any ‘deficiency’ in service the instant consumer complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law and it is prayed that this learned Forum in exercise of the power conferred on this Forum U/s 26 of the Act, 19986 may be pleased to dismiss this frivolous complaint with exemplary cost.
The O.Ps have relied upon:-
1. Customer details page 1 to 4- 4 sheets.
2. Customer details page 2 of 4- 1 sheet.
3. Customer details page 3 of 4- 1 sheet.
4. Customer details page 4 of 4- 1 sheet.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint and written version filed by the complainant and the O.Ps as well as the documents filed by the complainant. The complainant has become aggrieved against the O.Ps before availing the loan the complainant deposited sum of Rs 2,07,800/- 2hich was included with the margin money of Rs 1,53,595/-, insurance premium of Rs 38,869/- and other charges. The OP No. 1 has also issued the receipt dt. 05.01.2011 showing to have received D.D No. 001473 dt. 30.12.2010 drawn on Axis Bank, Chandikhol. The above amount is included in the advance amount of Rs 16,62,407/- but the OP No. 1 has failed to show in the statement of schedule of easy monthly installment where insurance deposit is shown which caused the unfair trade practice. The cause of action of this case arose on 19.12.2016 when the goondas were deployed by the OP No. 1, threatened the driver of the complainant to take forcibly action by applying physical force. Accordingly our observation the complainant ahs failed to prove this fact because he has neither lodged any FIR in the local police station of Bonth Chhak where the goondas applied their criminal activities, nor the complainant told anybody about this sorrowful matter. It was the first and foremost duty of the complainant to inform the local police about the forceful attempt of the goondas deployed by the OP No. 1. The complainant has sought for the relief of the O.Ps may be permanently restrained from taking repossession of the truck in question, is contrary to the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. Further it can be says that the above prayer made by the complainant does not come under the preview of the CP Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court “Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute” reported in 1995- AIR-SC 1428 has clearly explained that “a purchaser of a truck who purchases it for plying it as a public carrier by himself would be a consumer”. But in this case the complainant is a lady and does not possess a valid driving license to drive the financed vehicle. So she cannot claim that she had possess a valid driving license to drive the financed vehicle and therefore she cannot claim that she had employed herself in the said vehicle for earning livelihood. Hence the complainant has no locus standi to file the instant complaint. The OP No. 1 has filed the said loan agreement as Annexure- A. The allegations made in the Para No. 1 on the consumer complaint at the cost of repetition that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle is question is used in transport business for commercial purpose.
The statement of account of the complainants loan account has been filed by the OP No. 1 which is marked as Annexure- B. It pertinent to mention here in that the complainant had got financial facility from the OP for purchasing the vehicle in question in the year 2011 and she had executed an agreement in the year 2011 which was to be matured on 20.10.2014. As per our observation the complainant has violated a terms and conditions of the agreement for which she requested the OP No. 1 and 3 for reducing the EMI and executed a second agreement on dt. 23.08.2013.
With regard to the accounts of the complainant and OP No. 1 & 3 the D.C.D.R.F is list, concerned and having no jurisdiction for adjudication. After perusing the entire complaint and the written version filed by both the parties, no where we have found any deficiency of service caused by either OP No. 1 or OP No. 3. The OP No. 2 is the guarantor who has neither appeared nor filed his written version. Hence he has been set ex-parte. The date of cause of action is seemed to be imaginary or frivolous because no evidence has been adduced by documentary or orally by the complainant in support of the same. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against OP No. 1 and 3 and ex-parte against OP No. 2 having no merit without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 19th June, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
