Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/106/2020

Trupti Ranjan Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Head Manager Sriram Transpot Finance co.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.Prusty

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                                         JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party to final settlement of loan outstanding in respect of refinance agreement vide No.CUTTK- 0403260003 and not to repossess the vehicle till final settlement is made and pay the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency of service and unfair trade practice along with cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/- ”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant to maintain his livelyhood, has purchased a carriage vehicle Ashok Leyland Ten Wheeler Truck bearing Regd. No.OR-05W-0779 through finance from opposite party and used this truck for carrying Iron Ore and Coal and as per the terms and conditions of agreement, the complainant has cleared all the finance dues/loan amount to the aforesaid finance company and after clearance of loan became the absolute owner in possession. But due to major engine problem and remodeling of body of the truck, again the complainant applied to the opposite party for refinance against the said vehicle. So, according to the condition of the said vehicle the opposite party was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.4,40,000/-  through demand draft on 23.8.2012 and the complainant has deposited the demand draft amount of Rs.4,40,000/- to the Syndicate Bank for clearance and after clearance, the complainant detected from his bank account that in place of Rs.4,40,000/- the amount is credited Rs.4,29,763/- and deducted the amount of Rs.10,237/-. So the complainant asked the opposite party in his office about reason of deduction and on reply, the opposite party replied that towards processing charge, such amount is deducted from the sanctioned amount. But it is a fact that, the opposite party did not supply any written document or any money receipt relating to such deduction. So, actually, the rest of the amount of Rs.4,29,763/- is the loan amount on the face of bank account of the complainant. According to bill transaction papers of the opposite party the repayment of loan dues was started from 05.10.2012 to 18.3.2014, the complainant has paid Rs.1,90,247/-. Besides that, it is also a fact that the opposite party repossessed the said refinanced truck and the complainant has paid Rs.1,21,750/- on 05.1.2018 to release the truck. According to 1^st and 2^nd statement of accounts, started from 05.10.2012 to 30.8.2019 the complainant has paid Rs.7,82,897/-. But the opposite party has sanctioned the loan to the complainant on refinance system amounting Rs.5,15,095/-. So it is clearly ascertained that the opposite party has collected the excess amount of Rs.2,67,802/- towards O.D. and interest from 14.4.2014 to 30.8.2019. In spite of that, the opposite party demanded wrong and illegal outstanding.

            The opposite party has filed written version stating as under;

            The instant consumer complaint has been filed on 27^th August, 2020 after coming into force of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with effect from 20^th July, 2020. Thus the consumer complaint has been filed under a provision of law which is not in existence as the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 stands repealed w.e.f. 20.7.2020 in view of Section 107 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and on this score the instant consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has raised certain disputes like alleged deduction of Rs.10,237/- from his account which took place in the year 2012 and the complainant raises such a dispute after eight years from the date. On this score also the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. The finance has been made from Cuttack Branch of the company and at that time the present opposite party was nowhere in picture. Besides the allegation relates to deduction of Rs.10,237/- from his bank account maintained in Syndicate bank where the complainant allegedly deposited the demand draft of Rs.4,40,000/- given by the financer. But the said bank has also not been impleaded as party. The financer cannot have any role in automatic deduction of any money from any account or deposit of less amount than the draft amount. The complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission in clean hands and had suppressed vital material facts. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.4,40,000/- in the year 2012 and he failed to pay installment dues and became a chronic defaulter. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party in the year 2014 to refinance him in order to close the earlier loan account and start a new loan account. Accordingly a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was sanctioned on 27.2.2014. Now suppressing these facts the complainant pretends as if he does not know anything about this agreement and calculates his account in his own way without taking any consideration the agreement value, the tenure of agreement and the delay payment interest payable in the loan account etc. The opposite party have stated that complainant is liable to pay Rs.23,80,848/- as on 19.9.2020, but he claims that the opposite party has collected excess amount towards O.D. and interest from dt.14.4.2014 to dt.30.8.2019.

            The counsel for complainant has stated that Rs.10,237/- in 2012 was deducted by the opposite party  from his bank account maintained by Syndicate bank where the complainant deposited the D.D. given by the opposite party. The bank has deducted the amount but the said Syndicate Bank was not impleaded as party. This part of claim relates to 2012 as such it is barred by limitation. As regards the notice the opposite party have demanded Rs.17,55,972/- by writing a letter but in wards in said letter dt.28.12.2019 the amount of “one lakh ninety five thousand nine hundred seventy two” rupees has been mentioned. The loan agreement period covers for period from 2012 which has been repaid during 5/2019. As such in order to avoid repossession and linger the matter complainant has approach this Commission U/s.12 of Consumer Protection act, 1986 on 17.8.2020 where as the old Act has been repleded and new Consumer Protection Act came to force w.e.f. 20.7.2020 as such this Consumer Protection Act U/s.12 is also misconceived. The complainant has also taken loan from Sriram Transport Finance Company, Cuttack vide agreement No.CUTTK0208230005 dt.23.8.2012 but the opposite party of same company Jagatsinghpur has been implead only in order to bring it to the jurisdiction of this Commission under the old act the complainant should have filed the case before District Commission, Cuttack and in new act complainant could have filed before this Commission. The agreement/contract order is period since 05.01.2019 as stated by the opposite party in his objection and as on 19.9.2019 the total dues payable by the complainant is Rs.23,80,848.70 paisa. The complainant has taken loan of Rs.4,40,000/-. But after paying substantial amount still the due amount remains Rs.23,80,848.70 paisa as on 19.9.2019 which appears to be excessive and amounts to exploitation and harassment. Since the period of agreement has already been over and there is dispute relating to accounts and the complainant has filed the case U/s.12 after implementation of new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, we take lenient view and dispose of this consumer complaint giving liberty to complainant to make a proper representation to the proper authority and the authority shall consider the grievance and settled the dispute in accordance the rules keeping in view the financial condition, amount paid by the complainant and condition of vehicle and that the dispute resolved between the parties without further continuation of litigation. The opposite party shall transmit the representation to proper authority who consider the representation of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order. The aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of without any cost.

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 15^th Sept., 2022.