For Complainant          :             Sri R.V.R. Patnaik, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party               :             Sri Santosh Kumar Dash, Advocate.

                                                                                      -x-

1.                         The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that vide Contract No.ORJESG00063 he availed loan of Rs.24, 00,000/- from the OP under hypothecation agreement and purchased Ashok Leyland Tipper which was registered vide No.OD-10D-1381 and the loan amount was to be repaid in 48 EMIs  Rs.65, 000/-.  It is submitted that he pays EMIs regularly on different modes but the OP was not issuing statement of accounts for reference of the complainant in spite of notice dt.08.03.2018 issued by the Advocate of the complainant.  It is further submitted that during the month of December, 2017, the henchmen of the OP identifying them as Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahasildar, repossess the vehicle along with documents and the complainant with the help of local police recovered the vehicle.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to supply up to date statement of accounts with all relevant papers governing to the loan transaction and to pay Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                         The OP filed counter contending that the relationship between the complainant and the OP is that of a debtor and creditor for which the complainant cannot be treated as consumer.  The OP contended that they have financed the vehicle of the complainant on 26.8.2015 vide Agreement No.ORJESG00063 and the contract value was to be paid in 47 EMIs and out of which till 05/18 the complainant has to pay Rs.20, 75,235/- but he has paid only Rs.13, 77,400/- with shortfall of Rs.6, 97,837/-.  Further, delayed payment charges and other expenses for an amount of Rs.2, 15,537/- is pending till 05/18 and hence total OD pending against the complainant is Rs.9, 13,374/-.  It is further contended that the complainant being a literate person has signed the loan documents and the OP has provided all the relevant documents to the complainant and the OP has never given any false assurances to the complainant.  It is also further contended that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of loan dues and for such non payment of dues; the financier has every right to act as per terms of agreement.  With these and other contentions denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                         Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their respective cases.  The OP has filed written argument.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                         In this case, loan agreement vide Contract No.ORJESG00063 dt.26.8.2015 for Rs.24, 00,000/- signed between the parties with repayment of contract value in 47 EMIs are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that he is regularly paying the EMIs but the OP without supplying the statement of accounts in spite of repeated requests, is sending threaten messages to the complainant.  The complainant also stated that on one occasion, the OP has repossessed the vehicle along with relevant papers from the possession of his driver and with the help of local policy, the vehicle was released.

6.                         The OP stated that the contract value was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 EMIs and till May, 2018 he is to pay Rs.20, 75,232/- but he has paid only Rs.13, 77,400/- with short fall of Rs.6, 97,837/- besides delayed payment and other charges of Rs.2, 15,537/-.  Therefore, the total OD till 05/2018 is Rs.9, 13,374/-.

7.                         The complainant has filed a memo dt.07.08.2018 showing payments on 4 occasions to the OP and the said payments are not found place in the statement of accounts submitted by the OP before the Forum.  According to the complainant, on above 4 occasions, he has paid Rs.4, 15,000/- towards loan dues but the same has not been appropriated against the loan account.  From the above statements of the complainant it was not understood as to whether he is trying to close the loan account with advance payment before due date or due to default in payment of EMIs, he is paying such huge amount in every such occasion.

8.                         It is a settled principle of law that time is the essence of contract and the instalments are to be paid on or before the due dates every month and any default or delay in payment is to carry additional interest and charges as per terms of agreement.

9.                         The complainant says that, he is regularly paying the loan dues and the OP says that a sum of Rs.9, 13,374/- is due on the complainant till 05/2018.  The complainant also stated that some payments have not been adjusted in the loan account though duly paid by him.  In the above premises, we feel that this case purely falls under adjustment of loan dues and settlement of accounts between the parties.  The OP also stated that the amount as shown by then has been incurred due to default in payment of dues by the complainant.  In the above context, reliance can be placed to a decision of our own State Commission reported in 2007 (1) OLR (CSR) 38 where it has been held that the dispute between the parties if is over settlement of accounts, then the same not being a cognizable grievance under provisions of C. P. Act, cannot be adjudicated in the Consumer Forums/Commissions.  As per the ratio of the decision passed by our own Hon’ble Commission, this case cannot be adjudicated by this Forum and needs dismissal.

10.                       Hence ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)