Orissa

Rayagada

CC/1/2020

Thota Srinivas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Cholmandalam Invetments Financial Co, Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri N.K. Kanta & Associates

29 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION.      

                                    RAYAGADA, ODISHA.

Date of Institution: 2.01.2020

       Date of Final Hearing: 08.06.2023

          Date of  Pronouncement: 21.06.2023

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.01 / 2020

Sri Thota Srinivas Rao, At/Po: Therubali,  Dist: Rayagada  (Odisha), 765 018, 

(Sri  N.K.Kanta, Advocate   for the complainant)                                                                                                                                           ... Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Branch Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., , Po/Dist:Rayagada.

(Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan,Advocate for the  O.Ps)

2.The Regional  Manager, Cholomandalam Investment and  Financial Co. Ltd., Chennai- 600 032.                                   

(Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan,Advocate for the  O.Ps)       …Opposite parties.

Present:          1. Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President.

ORDER

Sri Rajendra Kumar Panda, President

Brief facts of the case:-

In obedience of the order Dt.7.02.2022   vide  F.A. No.10        of 2021   of  the Hon’ble State  C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack the case is  reopen for denove trial  before the  Commission and consigned  fresh notice to the O.Ps    for filing of written version by the O.P. and   fresh hearing.

Case in hand is the allegation of  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  for  non release   of TATA Ultra  1012 Mini Truck bearing  Regd. No.OD-18-C-5958. towards finance loan account  No.XVFPRAY00001869918   which  the complainant sought  redressal.

The Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had availed finance   from the O.Ps  for purchase of TATA Ultra  1012 Mini Truck bearing  Regd. No.OD-18-C-5958. a sum of Rs.10,87,000/-along with  interest  Rs.2,72,891/- Grand total Rs.13,59,891/- and to repay the same in 42 installments  each E.M.I. Rs.32,378/-. The complainant was signed the contract vide  No. XVFPRAY00001869918 and the repayment schedule started from Dtd.28.01.2017  to 28.06.2020. The complainant had already paid  the E.M.Is till November, 2019 total Rs.10,97,500/- to the O.Ps.  During the month of  December, 2019 the O.Ps  had  seized the above finance  vehicle   and kept  the same in their stock yard till date  with out any reason. On the date of seize of  the above vehicle the  complainant was outstanding to pay a sum of Rs.57,500/- to the O.P. Hence the District  Commission had passed interim order against the O.Ps to receive outstanding  amount and to release the above vehicle in favour of the complainant.    Therefore the  complainant prays the Commisson  direct the O.Ps  to deliver the above finance vehicle   to the complainant with good  running condition  with all parts as on the date of seizure in favour of the complainant and pass such other relief as the  commission  deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed,  the O.Ps  appeared  through their learned  counsel Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan   and filed  Written version.

Heard from the learned counsel for the  complainant and from the learned counsel for the O.Ps.   Perused the record, affidavits  and other documents  filed by  both the parties.

Basing on the pleadings of the complainant, this commission framed the following issues for determination.

ISSUES:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable  under the C.P.Act,2019?
2. Whether the  services of the O.Ps are  deficient towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled  to any reliefs from the O.Ps?

Perused the complaint petition as well as the documents filed by the complainant  including  self attested Xerox copies  loan papers  which was issued by the O.Ps in  favour of the complainant  Marked as Annexure-I .Issue  No.1.

Regarding the first issue the O.Ps in their written version has  raised preliminary objection that the complainant is not a consumer and hence his complaint is not maintainable in the  Consumer Commission. However Section 2(1)(d) (i) & (ii)  of the C.P. Act, 2986  corresponding   to Section  2(7)(i) & (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019 provides that Consumer means any person who hires or  avails of any services for a consideration  which has been paid or promised  or partly paid  and partly promised.  In the instant   case the O.Ps have charged  interest  on the loan  advanced to the complainant, the  rate of interest  is deemed  as the consideration being paid by the complainant.  It is  in this score  the claim of the complainant  as a consumer is upheld.

There is no dispute with regard to sanction and disbursement of loan  to the  complainant.  The  branch office of the  finance company advanced  loan to the complainant.  This is suffice to hold that bank is a service provider and the complainant is a person who has hired  banking service.  Therefore the complainant is a consumer. The relations between borrower and the bank is that of a consumer and service provider. The complainant  is a consumer with in the  definition of Section  2(7)(i) & (ii) of C.P. Act, 2019

Accordingly   issue No. 1  is answered.

Issue    No.2&  3 .

These  two issues invite common discussion and hence  they are being taken up together.

Undisputedly the  complainant  had availed   loan  for  purchase of  the vehicle TATA Ultra  1012 Mini Truck bearing  Regd. No.OD-18-C-5958. for   a sum of Rs.10,87,000/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  No.XVFPRAY00001869918  on Dt. 31.12.2016. The complainant was to pay  the total amount  of  Rs.13,59,891/- which was also included the finance  charges a sum of  Rs.2,72,891/- in 42   E.M.I.  monthly  installments @ Rs.32,378/- for the period from 28.01.2017  to  28.06.2020   (copies of the  loan documents and E.M.I list is  in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I).

Further on  perusal of the record it  is revealed that  at  the  time of   seizure of the above vehicle  during the month of  December, 2019 the complainant was  outstanding  to pay E.M.I an amount of Rs.57,500/- to the O.P. (Copies of  the account   statement  issued   by the O.Ps  is available in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).

The main grievance of the complainant is that without proper notice  and without default payment of E.M.I.  the  O.Ps had   seized the  above  vehicle during the month of  December, 2019  by  using local Gundas in forcefully   which is arbitrary, whimsical  where as the last date of agreement  will be  expired on  Dtd.  28.06.2020.  Hence the present  C.C. case filed by the complainant.

        The  O.P. in their written version contended that   as per the loan agreement he has not  repaid the loan amount as per the E.M.Is.   The complainant has already  paid total amount of Rs.10,97,500.00 to the O.Ps out of  total  loan amount and interest of Rs.13,59,891/-.  The O.Ps have  contended  that  the complainant  is  liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms agreement. Further the O.Ps have contended that the above said complaint is not maintainable either on facts or according to law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

        On perusal of the  loan   statement of accounts filed by the O.Ps  it is revealed that   the complainant  has already  paid   total Rs. 10,97,500./- in different dates  from 28.01.2017 to till date   towards  E.M.Is (copies of  payment  statement are  in the file  which  is marked as Annexure- 3).    Further it is revealed  that  the O.Ps had  claimed  an amount of Rs.5,12,327/-in their  statement of account  as on 29.04.2023  as against the due i.e. E.M.I to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,500/-by the complainant to the O.Ps. In turn the  complainant  found  no other alternative  had approached this commission  for  redressal of  their grievance

The  O.Ps have every right to earn profit from its customer, but it should  be reasonable or  acceptable one.  The O.Ps should not be a commercial  business centres for profiteering  from the exploitation of such type customer.

We deem it just and proper that out of the total E.M.I. a sum of Rs. 13,59,891/- the complainant  has already been   paid a consolidated E.M.I. amount  sum of Rs.10,97,500/-.  Remaining  E.M.I. amount of Rs. Rs.2,88,500/- is to  be deposited in  the counter  of the  O.P by the complainant.

Thus, in context of maintaining good relationship,  between bonafied  customer, this commission feel  it is just and proper that the O.Ps are entitled   the balance  E.M.I. a sum of  Rs.2,88,500/- from the complainant.

As per Section-100  of the C.P. Act.2019, “the provisions of this Act, shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force”. Hence, this  commission  can entertain the complaint.

Basing on the pleading and findings of the parties and for the ends of natural justice, we feel it just and proper if  the O.Ps   release  the above vehicle  in the same condition  when it was seized  from the complainant.

Accordingly   issue No. 2 & 3  are  answered.

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

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

 

O R D E R

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

The O.Ps  are ordered to deliver the TATA Ultra  1012 Mini Truck bearing  Regd. No.OD-18-C-5958  to the complainant with running condition in the road   with all parts in the same condition  when it was seized  from the complainant..  

The  O.Ps are directed  to receive only  outstanding  E.M.I  from the  complainant on  installment  basis  without  charging  any  other charges.

The complainant is directed to pay the  outstanding E.M.I. to the O.Ps.  on  installment  basis   regularly  after  receipt of  the  above  vehicle  from  the   O.Ps.

The O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for  mental agony, financial loss  and Rs.10,000/- towards   litigation  expenses   to the complainant.

          The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceedings U/S-71 & 72 of the C.P. Act,2019. 

Miscellaneous  order if any  delivered by this  commission  relating to this case  stands vacated. 

Pronounced in the open court of this Commission today on this 21st. Day of    June, 2023 under the  seal  & signature of  this Commission.

Dictated and corrected  by me.

                                                                       

PRESIDENT

A copy of this order be provided to all the parties at  free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act,  2019 or they may download same from the confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of order received from this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

                                                              PRONOUNCED ON  Dated.21.06.2023