Orissa

Jajapur

CC/60/2015

Ganeswar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Biraja Prasad Parida,Pitambar Mishra

29 Mar 2016

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar,President,

                                                                         2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                         3.Miss Smita Ray,Lady Member.    

                                              Dated the 29th day of March,2016.

                                       C.C.Case No.60 of 2015

1.Ganeswar Sahoo S/O Late Lokanath Sahoo

2.Ramalata Sahoo, W/O Ganeswar Sahoo

Both are of Vill. Upperkaipada, P.O. Kaipada,

P.S.Bari-Ramchandrapur,Dist.Jajpur.

                                                                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.The Branch Manager,Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd,

     At/P.O Chandikhole,P.S.Badachana,Dist.Jajpur.

2. The Managing Director, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd

Regd.Office-Post Box No.1246,DARE HOUSE,1^st floor,No.2,N.S.C,Bose Road

Parrys,Chennai-600001,India.

                                                                                                                          …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:           Sri B.P. Parida, Sri P.Mishra, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties             Sri A.K.Pahil, Advocate.

                                                                                                             Date of order:   29.03. 2016.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY,  MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps.

                        The facts relevant for the present dispute shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner purchased a TATA LPT Truck bearing Regd. No.0R-05-AC-4724 by availing re-financial assistance amounting to Rs.4,75,150/- from the O.Ps. and for availing such loan the petitioner has executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. As per term and condition the petitioner no.1 is required to repay the loan amount  with financial charges of Rs.1,35,425/- in 35 monthly installments. The petitioner no.2 was the guarantor to the above said agreement.

                        That after availing  the financial assistance the petitioner has repaid the EMIs starting from 05.07.2012 till 22.06.2015 totaling  of Rs.6,26,250/- to the O.Ps. in 37 installments instead of  Rs.6,10,575/- including financial charges.

                        That it is the matter of great regreat that the petitioner has repaid an amount of Rs.20,000/- in shape of cheque bearing No.656340 of Indian Bank, Baliapal Branch which has been encashed by the company  on 06.04.15 as per accounts statement of Indian Bank,Baliapal Branch where as the O.Ps. have indicated in the statement of account of the alleged vehicle that said cheque has been bounced on 11.05.15. Thereafter the petitioner though  informed the irregularities to the Branch Manager  of O.P’s Company but the Branch Manager without looking to the factual aspect threatened the petitioner to seize the alleged vehicle in case the petitioner did not pay the  amount  as mentioned in account statement.

                        Thereafter on dt.29.06.15 the petitioner received  a letter from the O.Ps. demanding a sum of Rs.76061/- as outstanding  dues against the petitioner.

                        Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps:-

1.To waive the illegal claim of the O.Ps. of Rs.76061/- .

2.The bounced cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- may be treated    as   unjustified and deficiency in service .

3.The O.Ps. may  be directed to pay the petitioner Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

                        After noticed the O.Ps. appeared through their learned advocate and filed their written version denying the allegation of the petitioner. In the written version the O.Ps. have taken the following pleas:-

1.That this Fora gets no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute and the present complaint is not maintainable.

2.That in the payment ledger it is clearly mentioned that Rs.4,75,150/- have been sanctioned to the petitioner . The petitioner has to clear up the loan amount with interest within 35 installments @Rs.17,445/- per month. It was also in the agreement if the complainant will not pay the installments in due time he is bound to pay  DPC   charge and delay payment charges . As per payment ledger the petitioner has  over due of Rs.3971/- and DPC charges of Rs.39,306/- in total Rs.43,277/- till 15.07.2015.

3.There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Rather the complainant has committed deficiency in service in payment of dues of the OPP.Party .

4. Since the O.Ps. in his payment ledger have admitted the encashment  of Rs.20,000/- by depositing cheque bearing No.1319783029 dt.31.10.2014 the dispute is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost .

                        After hearing we have perused the record along with documents and agreement copy in detail and inclined to frame the following issues so as to come to our conclusion.

1.Whether the petitioner is a consumer who is entitled to maintain the dispute in this Fora ?

2.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complain petition ?

                        At the initial stage  we make it clear that we are going to decide the dispute basing on the facts and circumstances of the present dispute as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(2)CPR-108-SC.

Answer to issue no.1

                        It is undisputed facts that the petitioner has availed the loan of Rs. 4,75,150/- from the O.Ps. for purchasing the above cited vehicle. As against such loan the petitioner is paying interest which is consideration. As such the petitioner is a consumer as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1995-2-SCC-150(Consumer United & Trust Society Vrs.Chairman and M.D Bank of Baroda) 2001(1)CPR-7-Supreme Court.

Answer to issue no.2 and 3:-

                        These are the vital issues wherein we have to verify whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and if so whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed in his complain petition.

1.It is alleged by the petitioner that the O.Ps. without considering the grievance of the petitioner  arbitrarily and illegally demanding Rs.76,061/- and trying to take possession of the vehicle vide notice dt.29.06.15 . Further the petitioner also has alleged that the O.Ps. have shows in statement of accounts that the cheque no. 656340 of Rs.20,000/- has bounced where as it was already collected on dt.06.04.2015 which has been reflected in the Bank statement. There is no single scrap of paper in the record which will prove that the petitioner has approached the O.Ps for the same in support of his allegation. Similarly it is also the fact that the petitioner was not paid all the EMI in due date and the contract period  has already been  over.

                        Further the statement of accounts filed from the side of the O.Ps. clearly stated that the O.Ps calculated the additional interest on delay payment charges as 48% per annum.

                        Like wise though the O.ps are entitled to charge DPC/ additional interest on delayed payment of installment but such charging can not be 36% / 48% interest instead of 9% as per observation of Hon’ble High Court vide W.P(C) No.177720/2008 since it is contrary to constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR-2001-3095-S.C.

                        It is further revealed from the record that the O.Ps. demanded Rs.76061/- vide their demand notice dt.16.06.2015. But during the pendency of the dispute it is not known under what circumstances the O.Ps. reflected in their written version that the said demand amount reduced to Rs.43,277/- as on 15.07.2015 and the cheque bearing no.1319783029 has been  encashed on dt.31.10.2014.which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                        In view of the above observation from our side it is cristal clear that the O.Ps. Committed gross deficiency and unfair trade practice .Accordingly the blame is to be placed at the door of the O.Ps.

O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. as per below:-

1.The O.Ps. are directed to re-calculate  the DPC/ additional interest charging 9% interest instead of 48% per annum. After re-calculate the DPC/ additional interest the O.Ps. are directed to intimate the petitioner within 30 days.

2.The O.Ps. are directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within 30 days  after receipt of this order. At the time of re-calculating the additional interest /DPC the total payment amount towards DPC / additional interest which has been earlier paid by the petitioner shall be taken into consideration .

3.The O.Ps. are also directed to take into accounts the disputed bounced cheque amount if earlier it is not taken into accounts and after completion of the above process the O.Ps. shall issue N.O.C / N.D.C against the vehicle to the petitioner after balance payment is made by the petitioner  if arises . No cost. 

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of March ,2016. under my hand and seal of the Forum.