Orissa

Cuttak

CC/330/2011

Rupak Ranjan Khuntia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sriram Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.330/2011

 

          Rupak Ranjan Khuntia,

          S/O:DhaneswarKhuntia,

          Village:Kanpur,P.O:Dumuka,

           P.S:Marshaghai,Dist:Kendrapara.                                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.      Sriram Finance Ltd.,

At:Mahanadi Vihar,

(Near Kalinga Gramya Bank),

                 P.O -Nayabazar,Dist-Cuttack

 

2.       R.T.O,Cuttack,

At/PO:Chandini Chowk, 

Dist: Cuttack.                                                                          ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    30.12.2011

Date of Order:  15.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. B.M.Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.1:              :     Mr. B.P.Bahali,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P no.2:                    None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had obtained financial assistance from O.P no.1 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- by executing loan agreement no.CUTTK0808160003 and had agreed to pay the first E.M.I of Rs.17,751/- and the other E.M.Is @ Rs.17,743/- and in total in 45 number of instalmentswere to be paid with effect from 15.09.2008 till 15.4.2012.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- from the total amount of loan of Rs.7,80,700/-.  He had also spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards the accessories of the vehicle which he had purchased through the loan amount and had also spent an amount of Rs.14,000/- towards the insurance of the said vehicle which was registered by the R.T.O,Cuttack bearing Regd. No.OR-05-R-5661.  O.P no.1 on 26.7.2011 at about 1 P.M had seized the said vehicle of the complainant at Jagatpur area and had sent a repossession letter to the complainant on 17.8.2011.  By the time of repossession of the vehicle, the complainant had paid 19 number of E.M.Is amounting to Rs.3,42,000/-.  He had spent Rs.80,000/- towards the broken block and also paid an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards the second time broken block.  Still, he was arranging money in order to pay the defaulting dues.  He had assured to O.P no.1 to repay the defaulted two number of E.M.Is and had requested to release his vehicle but O.P no.1 has sent him a sale notice of the vehicle on 19.11.2011.  The complainant had given ablank cheque bearing no.708204 drawn at Bank of Baroda to the O.P no.1 in order to release his repossessed vehicle but still the O.P no.1 had not released the repossessed vehicle of the complainant for which the complainant has come up with this case seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment, a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of his prestigeand a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of his litigation and also for a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of his business.  He has also averred to adjust the said Rs.1,00,000/- awarded in his favour towards his defaulted E.M.Is and also to declare the action of seizure to be null and void and to restrain the O.Ps from selling his vehicle  and rather to release it in his favour.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has affixed several copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the two O.Ps as arrayed in this case, only O.P no.1 has preferred to contest this case and has filed his written version wherein he has urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands, rather, has suppressed the material facts.  O.P no.1 admits to have financed the complainant for purchasing a vehicle after executing a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with him but  without paying the agreed E.M.Is, the complainant became a wilful defaulter for which repossession letter was issued to him asking to clear up the defaulted amount and ultimately as per process of law due to breach of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement, the vehicle was repossessed and the sale notice was given to the complainant.  Thus, the O.P no.1 through his written version has urged to dismiss the complaint petition as filed, it being not maintainable.

          He has also filed the original loan-cum-hypothecation agreement in order to apprise this Commission.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, the complainant had executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement while obtaining loan from O.P no.1 and had subsequently defaulted in paying the E.M.Is.  When the complainant had defaulted in paying the monthly instalments as agreed by him to be paid, there was definitely breach of the agreement as executed in between the complainant and the O.P.  Thus, the O.P as per the legal process had issued letter to the complainant asking to clear the defaulted amount of loan or else his vehicle is to be repossessed andin order to get the financed amount the said vehicle is to be sold.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P no.1 as alleged by the complainant and accordingly this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered:

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against O.P no.1 and exparte against O.P no.2 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 15^th day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

 

                                                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                               President

 

 

                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                           Member