Orissa

Rayagada

CC/103/2017

Jaya Prakash Jaiswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indus Inda Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Sitaram Panda

02 Nov 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                                      PO/DIST; RAYAGADA,   STATE:  ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001

C.C. Case  No.   103 / 2017.                                     Date.        2.    11   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Jaya Prakash Jaiswal, S/O: Late: Kunjalal Jaiswal, Kasturi Nagar,5^th. Lane,  Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The   Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Rayagada, Above Balaji Sweet shop, Rayagada.

.…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  Sitaram Panda, Advocate,

For the O.Ps  :- Set exparte.

                                                          J u d g e m e n t.

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment of losses towards detained the  finance vehicle Regd. No. OD-18A-7859 unnecessarily for non payment of  2 Nos. E.M.I.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  10 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 1 year  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.  Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.                                          Findings.

          Undisputedly the complainant  had purchased a Truck of TATA  LPT bearing Regd. No.  OD-A8-A-7869 availing finance amount a sum of Rs. 19,00,000/- from the O.P.  by  paying the down payment  of Rs.5,65,000/-. Accordingly  48 E.M.Is. has been fixed  from 1^st.  to 30^th. Installment  was fixed @Rs.57,500/- and rest 18 installments was fixed @ Rs. 53,500/-  by the O.P. for the period from 21.01.2015 to 21.10.2018. The O.P. has seized the above said vehicle on Dt. 5.8.2017  for non payment of 2 Nos.  outstanding  E.M.I.(copies of the  repossession inventory list ) is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I.

          The main grievance of the complainant is that without proper notice  the  O.Ps had seized the vehicle  on Dt. 5.8.2017 by  using local Gundas in forcefully on way of Khurda Road  which is arbitrary, whimsical  and wants compensation  from the O.P  where as the last date of agreement  will be  expired on  21.10.2018. Hence C.C. case filed by the complainant.

Admittedly the O.Ps have given the necessary finance to the complainant in the transaction .  They also admit the execution of the hire purchase agreement and the condition laid down there as per the hire purchase agreement.

In the instant case the O.Ps. had  without  given any notice of demand took  away the vehicle on Dt. 5.8.2017 where as the last date of agreement  had expired on  21.03.2008 . 

The O.P.  had  never taken the  spirit on consumer service in their attitude and they have encouraged their business wings to a prohibited area. Further the O.Ps  have  violating the provisions of   Odisha Regulation- 1968 and Odisha Debt  relief  Act  1981. Further the O.Ps have entered into the scheduled   prohibited area and violated U/S- 23 of the Contract act. 

Section-20   the Hire purchase  Act- 1972  defines that, restriction on owner’s right to recover possession of goods otherwise than  through  court.   Where    goods have been  let under a hire purchase agreement and the  statutory proportion of the hire purchase price  has been paid, whether  in pursuance of  the judgement   of a court or otherwise or tendered by or  on behalf of the hirer or any  surety, the owner  shall not enforce  any right to recover possession of the goods from the hirer otherwise than in accordance  with Sub-section -3  or by suit.

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 instant case repayment by the  complainant started  from  Dt. 21.01.2015 and he had paid   30  E.M.Is.  The vehicle was  seized on 05.08.2017 and by  then  total installment  dues are  02  E.M.Is.   Out of which the  complainant had paid  30 installments and had   deferred   payment of  2 installments   only  for which some penal  interest might  have  accrued  and some monthly  installments are over due .  But  from the records and document  available  on record the O.Ps had  never  issued any  default notice and repossession the same .

The entire transaction of the O.P. with the complainant in the deal was with an ill intention and they have never followed the rules and regulations while granting  the finance and without giving any chance  to the consumers they have  forcibly  took the vehicle on Dt. 5.8.2017  and  the above  vehicle was  utilized  by the complainant  for his     livelihood . Further  the complainant is residing in remote area and  due  to failure of crop   the complainant sustained heavy financial loss.

The Securitisation  and Reconstruction  of Financial Assets and enforcement of security interest Act clearly  provides the mode of recovery. The O.Ps have advanced the money for a definite purpose as seen from the   documents filed by the  complainant.  Hence they are guided by the same  as well as  by the guide lines given by R.B.I and the hon’ble  apex court  from  time to time  in the above subject.

On perusal of the documents we observed the O.Ps   had  clearly  violated the guide lines  given by the Act  and as well as by the  hon’ble Supreme Court and R.B.I. on the above subject and as such the repossession is an unfair trade practice and deficiency putting the poor consumer  into financial loss and mental agony.  The complainant is a educated  unemployed  youth  and for his livelihood  he  doing this business  so that the  complainant to earn  some money so that economically he can improve.  The intention of the legislature is also clear.  In order to mobiise and improve the economic conditions of the remote areas the scheme is opened it is not for the personal gain of the financing company.   Hence the action of  repossession of   the O.Ps  is a  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  It is held and reported in C.P.R-2012(1) page  No. 89 the  hon’ble  State Commission, West  Bengal where in  observed  “That the finance company can not be seized/ repossessed without observing  due process of law”.

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. Therefore  we are also  of the opinion  that  the O.P. has 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.

During  the course of  exparte hearing the learned counsel for the  complainant submitted  that  after deposit  of   default payment  the O.Ps  have released  the  above vehicle after few days.   But the  complainant `prays the forum direct the O.P to pay both the pecuniary and non pecuniary losses and to pay  the daily  losses a sum of Rs. 4,100/- per day   till detaining  date. 

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.                                                                                                  ORDER.

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

            The O.P. is ordered to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and damages  inter  alia to pay  Rs.2,000/- towards  litigation expenses.

The OPs     ordered to make compliance the aforesaid Order within  60 days from the  date of  receipt  of this order.      .

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

Dictated and corrected by me.  

Pronounced  on this      2^nd.           .   Day of   November,   2018.

 

 

Member.                                          Member.                                                      President