Orissa

Jajapur

CC/12/2016

Mrs.Sampad Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager Mahindra Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                              

                                           Dated the 25th day of September,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.12 of 2016

Mrs. Sampad  Behera  W/O Brundaban Behera  

Vill. Basudevpur, /P.O. Jahanpur,

P.S/ Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.The Branch  Manager, Mahindra finance ,C/O Mahindra & Mahindra Finance,

  Service ltd, Branch Office, Malik complex ,At/P.O.Panikoili chhak

  Dist.jajpur.

2.Authorised officer, C/O Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service ltd,

At.Plot No.511,1^st floor, Mahindra Tower, P.O,Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar

Dist. khurda

3.Authorised officer,C/O Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service ltd,

At.corporate Officer,2^nd floor, Sadhana House  Behind Mahindra tower

Worli,Mumbai.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                          Sri P.K.Ray, Sri R.K.Mohanty,Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties :                           Sri B.K.Tripathy, Advocate.

                                                                                              

                                                                                                             Date of order:   25.09.2017.

SHRI   PITABAS  MOHANTY,   MEMBER  .

Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The facts relevant for the complaint petition shortly are  that the petitioner is a women and in order to maintain  her livelihood had  purchased  a  Bolero Pick-Up C.B  vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-04-D-3821  taking financial assistance of the O.Ps.

            After a few days of purchase of the said vehicle in question  it started  mechanical problems for which the petitioner  met the dealer  (Aditya Motors)  about the  defect. Inspite of mechanical problem in the vehicle in question the petitioner has started  paying the EMI  to  the O.ps till the date of filing of the present dispute .  The petitioner  has already paid Rs.1,43,516/ towards installment dues but owing to such mechanical  problem the petitioner became unable to pay the EMI of the above vehicle regularly . Accordingly  the petitioner  informed all the facts to the O.p.no.1 through her lawyers notice  but the O.p.no.1 did not give any reply . Thereafter the petitioner  being a lady met O.P.no.1  in his office at panikoili  on dt.30.09.15 and requested to

supply the exact outstanding dues  of the above vehicle .  The O.P.no.1 instead of giving a clear  picture regarding the outstanding dues  directed the petitioner to come with Rs.2,00,000 for final settlement .

            That on 02.10.15 the O.Ps engaging his agents seized  the vehicle while it was Plying  on the road . Thereafter the petitioner filed a C.C. Case No.87/15  but during the pendency of the dispute both the O.Ps  entered into  a compromise  to release the vehicle in case the petitioner pay as  67,500/- and on the basis of compromise petition the C.C. Case No.87/15  was withdrawn but the O.P refused  to release the vehicle for the reason best to known to them . Thereafter  the O.P  issued a letter on 8.1.16 to the petitioner for taking coercive action . Accordingly  the petitioner filed the present dispute with the  prayer to direct the O.Ps to  release  the above vehicle long with c compensation of Rs50,000/-  for harassment and metal agony.

            The O.Ps appeared through their learned advocate filed the written version  taking following stands ;

*That the present complaint petition  is not maintainble in view of the prayer made in the petition. In the consumer complaint petition , the petitioner has neither averred  anything  with regard to the deficiency  in service nor with regard to illegal  unfair  trade practice of the O.Ps. thereby warranting  interference by this Hon’ble  forum.  The prayer made in the petition is not at all  tenable in the eye of law  keeping in view of the C.P. Act 1986.

*That exercise of right under the loan –cum- hypothecation Agreement  cannot be construed as  unfair trade practice  that any act of the O.P   in term  of the said agreement can not be termed as  unfair trade  practice and deficiency in service.

*.The present complaint petition  is not maintainable in eye of law since the loan agreement between the parties contains  an arbitration clause in as much as during the subsistence  of  loan agreement if there  arose any   dispute the same has to be referred to an Arbitrator .

*That the present case has been filed by the petitioner  only to avoid the  legal consequence as the petitioner is a defaulter in paying the monthly installment which is due on  her .

*.That upon the request of the petitioner  for availing financial assistance for the purchase of a vehicle , the O.ps after being satisfied with the financial credentials of the petitioner had  provided loan to the tune of 4,94,000/- to the petitioner,  agreement value including interest to be repaid by the petitioner was Rs6,24,416/.

*The petitioner has executed the loan -cum -hypothecation agreement  in acceptance to the terms and condition . The agreement value of Rs.6,24,416/- was to be repaid by the petitioner in 40 periodical installments @ Rs.4,316/- for 1^st installment and there after Rs.15,900/- for the rest 39 installments  each starting from 26.06.2014 to 10.09.17 . It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner paying the periodical installment earlier and approached the Hon’ble Forum in C.C. Case no.87/15 which was withdrawn by the petitioner with an undertaking . The O.Ps released the vehicle in her favour but the petitioner again choose not to pay the outstanding amount  within a specified  time and did not abide by the term of the settlement That there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  and the petitioner being a chronic  defaulter  of loan EMI  have violated the agreement by her own conduct for which the petitioner did not deserve any equity in the eye of law , for which the complaint petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from learned advocate for  both the sides. After perusal of the documents along with decisions filed from side of the O.Ps  it is observed that ‘ it is undisputed fact  that the petitioner purchased   a Bolero Pick-Up C.B vehicle  taking financial  assistance from the  OPs .

It is also undisputed  fact that i.e on 2.10.1`5 the vehicle was seized by the O.P and subsequently  the petitioner has  filed consecutively two numbers  of C.C. Cases  along with 13 (3b)  interim petition before this fora alleging deficiency in service and release of the vehicle .

3.it is also undisputed  fact that this fora vide its order dt. 03.05.17 directed the petitioner to deposit  a sum of Rs.80,000 along with stock yard  charges  before the O.Ps only to  release  the vehicle but  the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount in time before  the Op as a result the O.P  did not release the vehicle.

It is admitted fact when  the petitioner  is a defaulter and  fails to  pay the EMI  for the above vehicle the O.ps after  notices regarding the defaulted amount seized the vehicle as per law. Hence it is our considered view that there is no deficiency  in service on the art of the O.Ps.

Hence the case is dismissed . No cost.          

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 25th day of September,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.