DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2022.
Date of hearing : 10.06.2024.
Date of order : 16.07.2024.
Dated the 16th day of July 2024.
Sri Sambhunath Rout, S/o- Balyabandhu Rout,
At:- Qr.No.11/60, TSS Deepshikha, Kanhia, Angul-759147
At present :- Prachi Nagar, Po:- Dharitri Nagar,
P.S:- Bhadrak (R), Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Branch-In-Charge, Cholamandalam Investment &
Near Hanuman Temple, Angul.
- The Branch-In-Charge, Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Company Ltd., At:- Behera Mansion, By-Pass,
Bhadrak, Dist:- Bhadrak, Pin-756100.
- Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd.,
Dare House, 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys,
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri Debasish Nayak, Advocate .
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : Sri Dhirendra Kumar Ray, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant to maintain himself & his family gets a vehicle financed from the O.Ps. On being satisfied with the proposal of the complainant, the O.P. decided to advance Rs.33,20,526/- & it was agreed between them that the complainant would to liquidate the loan amount in 65 Nos. of installments & to liquidate the loan amount in 24 Nos. of installments @ Rs.1,15,000/- & @ Rs.50,718/- per month for remaining 41 Nos. installments starting from dtd.05.09.2019 to 05.01.2025. The loan was sanctioned by the O.Ps & ultimately the said vehicle vide Regd. No.OD-19-Q-1100 was given to the complainant & the vehicle bears Chassis No.MAT541196K3D10031 & Engine No.ISB59B4S230T191C63779584. The O.Ps has not supplied the copy of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation agreement, repayment schedule & statement of account to the complainant till date which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant has regularly paid his loan amount to the O.Ps without any fail till April, 2020. Due to closure of mines, financial stringency & illness of the wife of complainant, he would not repay balance outstanding loan due i.e. EMI. Besides this when complainant wants to deposit the amount less than the fixed EMI, the cashier of the O.P.1 financer refused to accept the amount. The complainant requested the O.P.1 for restructuring loan account waiving interest of Moratorium period declared for the Covid-19 pandemic i.e. 01.03.2020 to 31.08.2020. On 31.03.2021 the complainant has duly paid for an amount of Rs.33,000/- & Rs.17,000/- and authorized collection executive of O.Ps issued payment receipt as a token of acknowledgment but the O.P.1 refused to accept & denied the same. As such the complainant compelled to file a C.C. Case No.58 of 2021 at DCDRC, Dhenkanal & after passing the order the O.P.1 adjusted the aforesaid amount. The complainant in due course of time has paid the amount of Rs.19,20,378/- till June, 2021 as against his outstanding, though the expiry period of the contract is 05.01.2025.But the O.Ps are asking for an amount of
Rs.4,96,045/- as overdue charges. Unfortunately the aforesaid vehicle has faced an accident at Jajpur Road under Korai P.S. on dtd.19.03.2020 & the vehicle has been seriously damaged. The vehicle was standing four months for repairing at service center & also the complainant was spending for the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- for repairing. But without any notice & behind back of the complainant the O.Ps settled the insurance claim & received the small amount of Rs.95,000/- & also give him full & final settlement of claim, which is not only wrong, illegal but also arbitrary & deficiency of service. Another vehicle bearing No.OD-19K-4500 of the complainant which is financed by the O.Ps have faced an accident on 20.03.2021 & the vehicle has been seriously damaged. The complainant has prayed for rephasement of the loan and compensation for harassment and mental agony. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. (1) Registration certificate (2) Receipt (3) Smart card, representation of complainant & (4) Money receipts-4 sheets.
The O.Ps submit that, the complainant has taken two heavy commercial vehicle from the O.Ps vide Regd. No.OD-19-Q-1100 by executing Loan Agreement No.XVFPANG00003114845 & Regd. No.OD-19-K-4500 by executing Loan Agreement No.XVFPANG00002100019. The complainant has not paid the EMIs in scheduled time & in both the cases of hypothecated agreements the loan portfolio turns to non-performing assets. The O.P. has communicated several times in that regard. But the complainant does not respond thereon. The complainant was taking loan from the O.P. with agreement. Hence the complainant is the borrower & the O.P. is the financer. During Covid-19 the O.P. Company like any other bonafide NBFC extended moratorium facility to its eligible customers on the terms as specified by RBI & Ministry of Finance. Hence there was no act of omission or commission by the O.P. Company amounting to unfair trade practice. Due to default in payment of EMIs notwithstanding repeated requests & reminders the contract vehicle was lawfully seized by the O.P. Company in a peaceful manner to the terms of loan agreement. The contract mutually executed by the complainant is executor in nature, hence service is subject to payment of EMI, which has been grossly violated by the complainant. Because of continuous defaults only the litigant borrower the O.P. Company was compelled to refer the matter to the Ld. Arbitrator & repossesses the vehicle following necessary order to the effect. Even after seizure instead of doing his part borrower has filed this complaint suppressing the arbitration proceedings & earlier adjudication by DCDRC, Dhenkanal & pendency of First Appeal with SCDRC, Cuttack. Hence there is no deficiency of the O.P. Company. The O.Ps filed the documents i.e. (1) Copy of Arbitration Case No.1/22 & (2) Copy of Account Statements.
Having heard the rival contentions and materials available in the record this commission is of the opinion that the complainant has to do equity to get equity. The onus of proving that he has regularly paid the installments in time is upon the complainant. The complainant failed miserably to prove his consistency and punctuality in loan repayment. So also it has failed to establish acts and omission which would amount to unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. It is very much within its right to repossess the financed vehicle in case of non-payment of agreed repayment. The financer has all the legitimate right to adopt all procedures of law to get back its money which cannot be termed as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. The complainant has to pay the loan amount and interest and other charges accrued as per the terms of the loan agreement by the end of the tenure of the loan or else the O.P financers are free to exercise their legal rights to get back their loan. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 16th day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
