Orissa

Rayagada

CC/4/2021

Sri Sushant Lima - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment co, Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri VRM Patnaik

25 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     04      / 2021.                             Date.     25     . 2. 2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                                      President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Sushant Lima, S/O: Dailbandhu Lima, Village: Pindapadar, Badakhilapada, Dist:Rayagada. 765 001.                           Complainant.

Versus.

 

Vrs.

1. The  Branch Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., , Po/Dist:Rayagada.
2. The Regional  Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., Chennai- 600 032.                                               .…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V.Ram Mohan Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

.For the O.Ps  :- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

 

JUDGEMENT.

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps not to repossess the vehicle OD-18-A-7292  truck  Ashok Leyland till finalization of the  case for which  the complainant  sought compensation  for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

            Undisputedly the  complainant  had availed   loan  for  purchase of  second  hand  Ashok Leyland 10 wheel Truck bearing Regn.  No. OD-18-A-7292  for   a sum of Rs.12,15,000/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  XSHURAY 00003630961  on Dt. 10.08.2020. The complainant  was to pay  the total amount  of  Rs.18,68,146/- which was also included the finance  charges a sum of  Rs.6,53,146/- making  in 48   E.M.I.  monthly  installments for the period from 10.10..2020  to  10.7.2024  @  Rs.39,700.00  each E.M.I. (copies of the  loan documents and E.M.I list is  in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I.

        The main grievance of the complainant is that  he had deposited  the 1(One) E.M.I. timely.  Due to accident took place and  some financial problems some E.M.Is  were  not deposited.  So the O.Ps.  threatening the  complainant  that he  will repossess the  above vehicle  and they sell  the same  to clear off the loan amount. Hence this  C.C. case.

        The  O.P. in their written version contended that   as per the loan agreement he had not  repaid the loan amount as per the E.M.Is for  which the complainant is liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms and conditions  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms of agreement.

The complainant approached the forum to   pass an  interim   order for  prohibiting the O.P. Bank not to repossess the  vehicle. The interim petition was disposed  of directing the O.P.  not to take forcible  possession of the loan  vehicle and also to accept the installment paid  by the complainant. The O.P. while honoring the order of  this forum did not seize the vehicle,   the complainant paid the  installment amount  which is  much less than the E.M.I. for which the  outstanding loan    has swelled-up.

The  O.P. in their written version contended  that the complainant  has not came in clean  hand before the forum and has suppressed some material facts. The complainant is a chronic  defaulter in repaying the loan dues and he has never made payment of the installments as per agreed terms and conditions for which  huge amount of loan amount  remain unpaid  as such the  O.Ps  have  requested  to the complainant for repay the loan dues as per agreement.

Admittedly   the complainant has admitted that  he has defaulted in repaying the regular installments due to accident of above vehicle and under takes to repay all the pending installments within  few  months.  The O.Ps. had never  intention to seize the vehicle of the complainant as no such documents have been  filed by the complainant in this context before the forum.

It is held and reported  in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. page No. 787  and  1994 (I) SCC 243 the Hon’ble Supreme Court  observed  importance of the Act lies in promoting welfare of the society by enabling the consumer to participate  directly in the market economy. It is clearly stated by the apex court that it attempts to remove the helplessness of a  consumer which he faces against powerful business, described a net work of rackets or a society in which producers have secured power to rob the  rest  and the might of public bodies which are degenerating  into store house of in action.

It is held and reported in OLR 2007(1) (SC) page No. 472 where in  the Hon’ble Supreme  Court  observed – Loan granted by  finance company- Default in payment- Recovery  of same- Procedure- Recovery of loans or  seizure of vehicles could be done  only through  legal means- The Finance company  cannot employ goondas to take  possession by force.

In the present case in hand  we are of the opinion that admittedly the complainant failed   to pay the E.M.I but it was also the duty of the O.P. to issue notice  before seizure of the vehicle as per the agreement, which was not done by the O.P. In the instant case.   we are also  of the opinion  that  the O.P. should  not  seized the vehicle through an illegal manner which  can not be encouraged in the  eye  of law and we are inclined to mention that henceforth  the O.P. shall not  seize  any vehicle  forcefully and without assigning any notice before seizure.

It is observed that   the complainant has paid  3(three)Nos. of  E.M.Is  after filing of the C.C. case. Before filing  of the C.C. case  the complainant has already  paid one instalment.  Till date  the complainant has paid   total   4(four) Nos. of E.M.Is.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Alianc

e Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed. 

                                                                                                 ORDER.

            In  resultant   the complaint petition stands allowed  in  part  on  contest against  the O.Ps. 

The  complainant is directed to deposit   the  E.M.I. regularly  without fail.

            The O.Ps are directed shall  not charge overdue penal interest beyond the guide lines fixed by the R.B.I.   and  can not be seize / repossess without  observing  due process of  law.  The O.Ps are further directed  shall not  seize  above finance vehicle  forcefully and without assigning any notice before seizure.

            The interim order passed  by this forum on Dt.7..1.2021  made final  with the above direction.

.

   Serve the copies of above order to the parties free of cost

Dictated and corrected by me.  

Pronounced  on this      25th.     Day of   February,   2021.

 

 

.                                               Member.                                                      President