Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/56/2017

Sunil Kumar Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

The BM, Cholamandalam investment & finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Mishra & Associates

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-56/2017

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sunil Ku. Patel,

S/O- Late Kirit Patel,

R/O-Attabira,

PO/PS/Dist- Bargarh, Odisha.                                       …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. The Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam investment & Finance Company Ltd.

Sabat Campus. N.H.^, Dhanupali,

Ainthapali, Sambalpur.

2. Cholamandalam investment & Finance Company Ltd.

Dare house, 1^st floor, No.2, N.S.C Bose Road, Parrys, Chennei,

•  

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant      :-Sri. B.Mishra Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.s                    :- Sri. A.K.Sahoo & R.Gupta, Advocate & Associates.

 

DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT :18.07.2022

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT.

1. The Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant entered in to a hire-purchases agreement with O.Ps to purchase TATA LPT-1109 truck for an amount of Rs. 12, 76,187/- agreed to repay in 47 monthly installments @ Rs. 36,650/- P.M. The Complainant paid Rs. 36,650/- on 30.06.2017 to the O.P. No.1. Timely installments have been paid.

On 08.07.2017 some people claiming to be agent of O.Ps snatched the vehicle forcibly in Keonjhar, loaded with rice bran as a result suffered financially and reputation in public. Copy of agreement not supplied to the Complainant and the O.Ps have taken blank paper signatures. The O.Ps are deficient in their service and sought Redressal before the Forum/Commission.

2. After appearance in their version the O.Ps submitted that vide agreement No. XVFPBGH-00001680870 TATA LPT-1109 vehicle was financed to the Complainant challenged the jurisdiction of the Forum/Commission in view of arbitration clause in the hire-purchase agreement. The Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ and there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. The Complainant has suppressed material facts.

The Complainant is liable to repay the loan with interest in 47 installments of Rs. 36,500/- each commencing from 28.06.2016 to 28.04.2020. The Complainant was irregular in his repayment. On default the O.Ps repossessed the vehicle following due process of law. Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. After perusal of the documents filed by both the parties the detail observation are as follows:-

The parties entered in to hire purchase agreement No. XVFPBGH00001680-870 for finance of TATA LPT bearing Regd No. OD-17-G-5363 for an amount of Rs. 12,76,187/- having Tenure of 47 installments w.e.f. 28.06.2016 to 28.04.2020. The cost of the vehicle is Rs. 14,94,540/-.

From the account statement filed by O.Ps it reveals that there is irregularities in payment but up to 42^nd installments the Complainant paid against due installments. The O.Ps have collected Rs. 83,756/- additional interest and Rs. 25,240/- bouncing charges from the Complainant.

This Forum/Commission vide order dated 13.07.2017 while granted interim order held that the O.Ps have seized the vehicle without following due procedure of law. While argument advocate for the O.Ps submitted that the vehicle has been released and there is no case against the O.Ps as loan account has been closed.

Since long the Complainant has not taken any step. From the accounts statement it is clear that the loan account is closed.

Accordingly, I am not inclined to continue the case further and the case is closed.

Order pronounced 18^th day of July, 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.