Orissa

Rayagada

CC/79/2021

Praveen Kumar Mandal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sumant Katha Palia Md & CEO Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.      

                                    RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 22.04.2021

  Date of Final Hearing: 6.04.2023

        Date of  Pronouncement: 25.05.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.79 / 2021

Sri  Praveen Kumar Mandal, S/O: Raghunath Mandal, At:Saipriya  Nagar,  Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha), 765 015,  Cell No. 9437206855.

(Sri Laxmi  Padhy, Advocate for the complainant)                                                                                                                            ... Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager, Indusind Marketing & Financial Services(Indusind bank Ltd), Above  Central  Bank, 2^nd. Floor, J.K. Road,  Po/Dist: Rayagada.

2.The   Manager, Indusind bank Ltd, 78, Unit-3, Kharvelanagar, Bubaneswar, 751010, Dist:Khurda, Odisha.           

(Sri  Santosh  Kumar  Mohapatra, Advocate for the O.Ps)

                                                                                    ... Opposite parties.

            Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDER         U/S- 39  R/W 64 OF THE C.P.ACT,2019

 

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President

Brief facts of the case:-

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non issuance  of N.O.C to the   Bolero Regd. No.OD-18-C4123. towards finance loan account  No.OCY00021L9   which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had availed finance of Rs.5,60,414/-  from the O.Ps  for purchase of Bolero vehicle  with a payment facilities  of  34 installments in two parts  i.e. Rs.21,900/- for first 20  & Rs.19,900/- for  rest 14(Fourteen) Installments. That as per the  contract vide  No. OCY00021L9,  the repayment schedule w.e.f.  Dtd.20.11.2016  to 21.08.2019. The complainant had already paid all the E.M.Is toto Rs.7,54,909/- to the O.Ps.  Therefore the  complainant prays the Commission  direct the O.Ps to provide N.O.C. in favour of the complainant and pass such other relief as the Hon’ble Commission  deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed,  the O.Ps  appeared  through their learned  counsel Sri  Santosh  Kumar Mohapatra   and filed  Written version stating  NOC can not be  issued to this complainant  remained guarantor  to the loan account  of  G.R.Satapathy

Heard to the complainant and the learned counsel for the O.Ps.   Perused the record, affidavit  and other documents  filed by   the parties. The documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  loan papers  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I .

Basing on the above, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable  under the C.P.Act,2019?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Issue  No.1.

Section 2(1)(O) of  the  C.P.Act,1986  corresponding  Section -2(42) of  the C.P. Act, 2019- Service- Advancing  of loan by a  finance agency also comes  in purview of definition of  service.

Section- 2(42) Service means: Service of any description  which is made  available to potential users and includes but not limited to the provisions of facilities  in connection with banking, financing,  insurance  transport etc., but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge  or under  a contract of personal service.

As seen from the   evidence placed on record  it is  manifest that the O.P. financed the complainant  to purchase the Bolero.  The complainant  has already  paid  all E.M.Is to the  loan but the O.Ps had    not  issued  N.O.C to the  loan vehicle  which amounts  deficiency  in service  on the part of the O.Ps for not issuing   N.O.C  in  favour of the complainant  towards  loan vehicle.    In view of the above said definition of  ‘service’  the consumer who avails service  of financial institution is entitled  to approach the  Commission to get his  grievances redressed.

Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

That  the O.Ps  in their written version  in para -16 (iv)  admitted   the  complainant  was taking a vehicle  loan in  the year 2016  and he has also paid all the dues amount vide  loan  No. OCY00021L9.  It proves that O.P. has to issue  the N.O.C and the  complainant is  entitled to receive the  N.O.C from the  O.Ps.

Admittedly the complainant stood as a guarantor for the loan availed by Sri Gyana Ranjan  Satapathy  and if the loan amount is not paid the responsibility of the guarantor is not co-exist along with  Sri Gyana Ranjan  Satapathy.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Sobhan Singh Vrs. State of UP and others where in observed “That no proceedings for recovery of the outstanding loan amount can be taken against  a guarantor so long as the property of the borrower which is mortgaged, charged or encumbered  is not first sold reported in SAR  2015(Civil)  page  No. 159(see para 8,9)”.

In this case in respect of loan sanction to  Mr. Satapathy  if the O.P. without  any  mortgage  of  property of Mr. Satapathy sanctioned loan  in his favour is not the mistake of this complainant who remained  as a guarantor  to that loan.  How the  mistake  of O.Ps bank  take shoulder by the  complainant(Guarantor).  If  at all the O.P wants to collect the loan they may  initiate legal  proceeding under  Civil   Procedure  Code  against    Mr. Gyana Ranjan  Satapathy.

Basing on the  above  verdict of the  Apex Court the complainant is entitle to get   N.O.C. of the  Bolero Regd. No.OD-18-C4123. towards finance loan account  No.OCY00021L9.  

Accordingly   issue No. 2 & 3  are  answered. Hence it is ordered.

                                    ORDER.

The O.Ps  are directed to   issue N.O.C. of the Vehicle  Bolero Regd. No.OD-18-C4123. towards finance loan account  No.OCY00021L9  in  favour of the complainant .

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of this order.

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 25^th. Day of    May, 2023 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.                                                      

            PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.25.05.2023