Orissa

Cuttak

CC/92/2017

Ramesh Chandra Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Head,Chola Business Services Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

06 Aug 2019

ORDER

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

C.C No.92/2017

 

            Ramesh Chandra Pradhan,

At/PO:Badapatasundarpur,

P.S:Govindpur,Dist:Cuttack.                                                                .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.        State Head,

Chola Business Services Ltd.,

Plot No.559,1^st Floor,Anapurna Complex,

Lewis Road,Bhuaneswar,Dist:Khurda.

 

2.            Branch Manager,

Chalamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.,

At:Justice Chhak,Mahanadi Vihar,

Dist:Cuttack.

 

3.            R.T.O,Cuttack,,

Dist: Cuttack.                                                                        … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    01.08.2017

Date of Order:  06.08.2019

 

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

For the O.P.No.1 & 2 :          Sri R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.3 :                            Self.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant being a consumer has filed this complaint before this Forum against the O.Ps for redressal of his grievances U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(Act in short) in terms of his prayer made in the complaint  is with regard to deficiency in service  provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being an unemployed youth and in order to earn his livelihood decided to purchase a vehicle being financed by the O.Ps on petitioner’s application for loan. The O.P bank as the financier earns profit for them and renders services to the consumers.  The relationship between the petitioner and the O.Ps is contractual as well as welfare on the basis of the agreement executed between the parties.  The financier as the first party in the contractual relationship with the complainant was to implement its various schemes of loans and to provide documents like (i) loan sanction order (ii) loan agreement and (iii) deed of hypothecation etc.   But the O.Ps did not supply the above documents except loan repayment schedule for an amount of  Rs.8,00,000/- under E.M.I of Rs.21,220/- and starting from January,2016 till November,2019 without intimating rate of interest.  The complainant paid about 13 E.M.Is of Rs.2,75,860/- to the O.P.1 through O.P.2.  The cost of the vehicle is Rs.8,00,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs.1,70,000/- as down payment.  Out of the total loan amount of the vehicle, at the time of seizure, outstanding amount was Rs.3,18,300/- and the complainant had paid about Rs.2,75,860/- towards E.M.I to the financier.  In addition to the aforesaid amount, the other investments of the complainant in the vehicle are accessories of Rs.50,000/- and tax, fitness, insurance and down payment paid by the complainant was Rs.1,70,000/-.  The complainant has registered his vehicle with R.T.O.  bearing Regd. No.OR-05R-7463.  Copy of R.C book is attached as Annexure-1.  The complainant was plying the vehicle all over Odisha and was regularly paying the loan dues as per the schedule.  But the complainant could not pay two installments due to accident of the vehicle for which the complainant spent Rs.1,82,232/- to repair it.  Then the complainant approached the O.P No.1 and O.P.1 permitted him for plying the vehicle but on 5.5.17 at about 10.20 A.M the O.P.2 suddenly seized the vehicle at Madhupatna Chhack at Cuttack without any prior notice.  The seizure list and repairing invoice is attached as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 respectively.  After the seizure of the vehicle, the complainant approached the O.Ps 1 & 2 to know about the reason of seizure but the O.P.1 told that since the complainant has defaulted in payment of installments, the vehicle was seized and the O.Ps are authorized to seize the vehicle.  The O.P.2 further demanded Rs.21,220/- to release the vehicle.  Therefore, the complainant has prayed before this Forum to direct the O.Ps to release the vehicle on receipt of defaulted E.M.I or if vehicle was sole , pay the value of the vehicle as per insurance value and to supply the copy of agreement and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1200/- per day as detention charges till release of the vehicle.  The complainant has also filed a misc. case praying the Forum to prevent the O.Ps to transfer the ownership of vehicle and to release the said vehicle without any condition.
2. O.Ps 1 & 2 have appeared and submitted their written version.  As per the O.Ps, the complainant is a defaulter of payment of loan E.M.Is and till the date of seizure i.e. 5.5.17 the complainant has defaulted installments for a sum of Rs.42,337/- and other overdue of Rs.12,662/-.  Therefore, the O.P had taken repossession of the vehicle with due information to the law enforcing authority and after repossession of the vehicle the O.P had issued notice to the complainant to pay the balance dues amounting to Rs.6,32,812/- by their letter dt.16.5.2017 or else they will sell the vehicle on auction.  But the complainant did not respond to the letter for which the vehicle has been put to sale on 19.6.17 in favour of one Rabindra Kumar Jena who has purchased the aforesaid vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-.  The O.Ps have further stated that the complainant had approached the O.Ps for availing loan for purchase of a TATA SFC 407/CLB in the year 2015.  The total loan amount of Rs.7,60,853/- disbursed by the O.Ps on 12.12.2015 which was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 monthly  installments vide loan agreement bearing No.XVFPCUT 00001551614.  After sanction of the loan, the complainant did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement while making payment of the loan E.M.I which resulted in huge default of loan E.M.I.  Therefore the O.P had issued various letters calling upon the petitioner to repay the loan or else the O.P shall be constrained to take repossession of the hypothecated assets.  Despite the issuance of letter and reminder, the complainant did not pay the E.M.Is on the stipulated date thereby having an outstanding of Rs.42,377/- and other overdue of Rs.12,662/-.  Then on 5.5.17 the O.P seized the vehicle giving prior intimation to the complainant and duly informing to the local police station.  Pre-seizure intimation issued by the O.P on 1.5.17 is attached as Annexure-A.  After the seizure the O.Ps had issued a pre-sale letter to the complainant on 16.5.15 requesting the complainant to pay the arrear outstanding amount of Rs.6,32,812/- within 7 days or else the O.P shall be constrained to put the vehicle to auction and the sale proceed shall be adjusted towards loan accounts.  The pre-sale letter dt.16.5.17 is attached as Annexure-B.  But the complainant did not respond to the O.Ps and then the O.Ps sold the said vehicle.  The sale acceptance of letter on the 3^rd party dt.19.6.17 is attached as Annexure-C.  After the sale of the vehicle, the O.P intimated the registering authority i.e. R.T.O,Cutack to change the name of the hypothecated vehicle in favour of the 3^rd party purchaser namely Rabindra Kumar Jena and after 2 months of the sale, the complainant filed the complaint before the Forum for payment of compensation and release of the vehicle.
3. We have heard from the learned advocates of the parties and gone through the documents and papers filed by them carefully.  We have observed that the complainant has availed loan from the O.Ps and failed to repay installments in time.  The O.Ps have seized the vehicle giving prior information to the complainant.  During course of argument, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court and National Commission have held that no force can be used for repossession of the vehicle by the financier.

The ground taken by the complainant does not ensure in favour of the complainant as because when he defaulted in paying the E.M.Is, it gives the right to the financier to take repossession of the vehicle.

                                                                                ORDER

Basing upon the facts and circumstances as stated above, the complainant 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 6^th   day of August,2019  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

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

                                                                                                            President.