SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-settlement of loan account and demanding illegal loan outstanding dues, along with threat of repossession of the vehicle are the allegations arrayed against Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint in brief reveals that, Complainant to earn his livelihood availed a finance of Rs.9 lakh from the Ops to purchase a 2nd hand TATA truck bearing No.OR-05-AH-1231 by executing an agreement. It was agreed between the parties that a total loan amount of Rs.12,51,389/- has to repaid by the complainant commencing from dtd.20.09.2011 to dtd.20.07.2014 with a monthly interest of Rs.34,500/-. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.5,16,900/- as on dtd.30.06.2013.It is revealed from the complaint petition that due to change in the policy of Govt. regarding mining and minerals, the transport business could not operate upto the expectations. Ops on request of the complainant and considering the crisis rephased the loan amount and an agreed amount of Rs.6,17,000/- to be treated as principal amount till dtd.30.08.2013, which is to be repaid in 35 monthly instalments starting from dtd.05.10.2013 to dtd.05.08.2016 with a monthly EMIs of Rs.30,350/-. It is also revealed that on receipt of statement of loan account after rephasement, complainant noticed that an amount of Rs.7,60,000/- has been mentioned as principal outstanding instead of agreed rephased amount of Rs.6,17,000/- and after rephasement of the loan amount, complainant has paid Rs.1,63,096/- on different dates. It is alleged that complainant has many a times brought it to the notice of the officials of Ops, regarding error and correction of principal rephased amount, but the Ops paid a deaf ear to the request of the complainant. It is further revealed that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.5,71,393/- after rephasement of loan and calculating its onwards payments. It is also presented that complainant has filed a consumer complaint before this Forum bearing No.38/2014 and the Ops agreed to settle the loan account amicably not to prosecute against each other and on bonafide belief complainant does not persuade the dispute, for which the said C.C.Case was dismissed on dtd.06.06.2016. The cause of action of the instant case arose on dtd.05.10.2016, when Ops threatened and issue notice to repossess the vehicle on non-payment of dues. The complaint is filed seeking direction of this Forum to Ops, not to repossess the vehicle of the complainant and to settle the loan account and to pay Rs.50,000/-adopting unfair trade practice.
3. Upon notice OP-Finance Company appeared through their Ld. Counsel and OP No.2, Branch-in-charge of OP-Company, at Gualsingh,Po/Dist:-Kendrapara was deleted from the proceeding vide order of this Forum bearing No.10 dtd.10.03.2017. In the written version, OP-Finance Company denies the allegations of the complainant and challenged the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of ‘Arbitration Clause’, ‘territorial jurisdiction’, ‘Accounts dispute’ and no cause of action arises against the OP-Finance Company by stating that on said grounds the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. Apart from the formal denial and maintainability of the complaint, on factual aspect of the dispute, it is averred that, the only office of OP, deals with the instant transactions located at Cuttack, and no persuasions by officials of OP, but on the request of the complainant, OP financed an amount of Rs.9 lakhs to the complainant for purchase of the vehicle and the complainant has to paid total Rs.12,51,389/- which includes its interest. It is also stated that in between the said agreement complainant availed a further loan of Rs.38,370/- with interest of Rs.5,622/- in toto Rs.43,992/- by executing another agreement. It reveals from the written version that complainant has availed a total loan amount of Rs.9,38,370/- and upto dtd.30.08.2013 complainant has paid only Rs.5,16,900/- against the principal amount of Rs.7,60,000/- on rephasement of loan amount. OP gives much importance to the terms and conditions of the agreement by averring that the sanctity of loan agreement is to adhered by the parties. It is further averred that the OP-Finance Company as per the ‘hire-purchase’ agreement has every right to recollect the loan dues and on its default can repossess the vehicle. It is also the plea of the OP that, the complainant to avoid the payment of loan dues has filed the present complaint on dismissal of earlier complaint bearing No.38/2014 filed before this Forum and the OP has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, which is to be dismissed with exemplary cost and provisions of Sec.26 of the C.P.Act,1986 be imposed on the complainant for filing such vexatious complaint.
4. Heard the dispute on merit as non-appeared on behalf of the parties on date of argument. Complainant, in support of his allegations filed attested photo copies of summary of loan account, letter to OP by complainant and notice of OP dtd. 05.10.2016 addressed to complainant-loanee. OP-Finance Company filed documents as per the list. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant by executing an agreement availed a loan of Rs.9 lakhs from OP-Finance Company purchased Tata Truck bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AH-1231. It is also admitted fact, that complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.12,51,389/- to close the loan dues, which includes the interest on loan amount. It is further admitted that, complainant-loanee has paid Rs.5,16,900/- upto dtd.30.08.2013 and the complainant-loanee was/is not regular in payment of monthly instalments.
The allegation of the Complainant relates to violation of terms and condition by Op-finance Company on rephasement loan amount which leads to an account dispute. Countering the allegations Op-finance Company, challenge the maintainability of the Complainant on different grounds and mainly it is the case of the Op-finance Company that Complainant –loanee is a chronic defaulter on payment of EMI’s and the allegations of account’s dispute can’t be adjudicate by his Forum as decided by Honbl’e higher Forums. In the present dispute neither of the parties filed the copy of the agreement nor the rephasement details as alleged by the Complainant. Though direction was given to Op-finance Company considering the petition of the Complainant to produce an agreement executed after availing the loan amount of Rs. 9 lakhs, where the Op-finance Company states that Complainant has taken another loan of Rs. 38,370/-. But no such agreement is filed by the Op-finance Company before this Forum. It is clear from the submissions of the parties that on a higher purchase agreement and in case of default of payment of insalements, the Op-finance company has every right to take lawful action against the loanee to recover the loan amount. Further, in the absence of rephasement details as alleged, it is difficult to arrive into a definite conclusion that, Op-finance Company has adopted Unfair Trade Practice by not adhering the rephasement of loan dues equally in the circumstances no direction can be issued to the Op-finance Company for settlement of loan account. More so, the allegation of accounts dispute does not fall within the purview of this Forum as decided by our own State C.D.R. Commission in case of Bhabanisankar Acharya & another vs M/s Gold Mohor Foods and Feeds Ltd. and others reported in 2007 OLRCSR38. Hence the Complaint bears no merit.
In the I.A. misc case No. 31/2016, which arises out of the present C.C.Case, this Forum directed the Complainant to deposit Rs. 1 lakh on final disposal of I.A. Misc case order dtd. 14/07/17 and ordered amount is subject to adjustment of the final hearing f the case. On compliance Complainant deposited Rs. 1 lakh and same amount is received by the Op-Finance Company. Accordingly, as per the order, the deposited amount is to be adjusted against the loan outstanding dues of the Complainant-loanee, if not adjusted earlier.
Having observation reflected above the Complaint is dismissed on contest on merit without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 19th day of December,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
