Orissa

Cuttak

CC/49/2016

Manoranjan Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors Office Head - Opp.Party(s)

M R Dhal

04 Jun 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.49/2016

Sri Manoranjan Behera,

S/O:Syamsundar Behera,

At/PO:Krushnapalli,Talabasta,

PS:Banki,Dist:Cuttack.                                                           ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        Tata Motors Office Head,

Think Techno Campus Building,

A,2^nd Floor,Off:Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,

Corporate Office Building,Pokhran Road-2,

Thane West-400607

 

2.        Branch Manager of Tata Motors

Finance Co. Ltd.,TMFL Bhubaneswar Branch,

Ist Floor,Keshari Talkies Complex,

Kharavela Nagar,Bhubaneswar.

 

3.       Office Head,Tata Motors

      Finance Co. Ltd.,Cuttack.                                                        ...Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.04.2016

Date of Order:  04.06.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. M.R.Dhal,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.Ps.               :            None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                          

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition is that the complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo   ECS Car for a sum of  Rs.5,48,628/- and had incurred a loan of Rs.4,75,000/-.  He could arrange a sum of Rs.73,628/-.  He had purchased the said vehicle on 29.9.12 from Swapna Motors Pvt. Ltd.,Bhubaneswar for his self-employment.  He had requested for OTS and had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,075/-  which was not accepted on 2.1.16.  The complainant had paid 30 E.M.,Is @ Rs.11,425/- out of 60 E.M.Is and thereby had repaid a sum of Rs.2,36,150/-. By not entertaining his OTS prayer to resolve the loan sanctioned in his favour the O.P has caused deficiency in service.  The complainant alleges that the O.Ps had caused harassment to him thereby he suffered mental agony as he was threatened of being repossessed.  As such, he has filed this case with a prayer for direction to the O.Ps in order to accept the OTS amount of Rs.2,17,075/- and to pay  compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.         Out of three O.Ps in this case, O.P No.3 was deleted vide order dt.4.1.17 and O.Ps 1 & 2 were set exparte vide order dt.9.5.2022.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:-

            i.          Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

            ii.         Whether the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

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

iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Point No.3.

            For the sake of convenience point no.3 is taken up first for consideration in this case.  On perusal of the case record, the complainant petition, the documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant wanted to close his loan account and repay the balance amount to the O.Ps for which he had suggested for settlement under OTS and had applied accordingly.  As it appears, the proposal of the complainant was not acceptable to the O.Ps for which it could not be enforced.  As per the OTS scheme there should be a valid proposal and acceptance but in the absence of acceptance alone, it can never be concluded here in this case that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

Point No.1 & 2.

            Accordingly it can never be said here in this case that the complainant had any definite cause of action to file this case and thus it also cannot be said that his case is maintainable.

Point No.4.

            Accordingly, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps but as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of June,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.