Orissa

Rayagada

CC/339/2016

Sri Balaji Choudhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, S.T.Fco. Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  339 / 2016.                                          Date.  25     02  . 2021

 

P R E S E N T .

.Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          President

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri  Balaji Choudhuri,  S/o: Yeggna Choudhuri,  Gajigam, Hatasasikhal,    Dist:Rayagada,  765 001  (Odisha)                                                                                                                                                                          …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Branch Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Company, Po/Dist:Rayagada.

2.The  Manager.  Shriram Transport Finance Company  Ltd., 101-105, Ist. Floor, Shiv Chambers, Sector -11, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai- 400614

.…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri  K.A.Ramachandran,  and associates.

For the O.Ps  :- Sri Pratap  Chandra  Das, Advocate,.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non release of   finance Tractor    John Deere-5045 bearing Regn.  No.OD-18-5124 after payment of the loan amount    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                               

    FINDINGS.

            Undisputedly the  complainant  had availed   loan  for  purchase of  the vehicleTractor  John Deere-5045  bearing Regd. No.OD—18-5124 for   a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-  plus interest Rs.2,71,556/- grand total Rs.5,21,556/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  RAGDA0306190001 on Dt. 19.06.2013. The complainant was to pay  the total amount  of  Rs. Rs.5,21,556/-  which was also included the finance  charges a sum of  Rs.2,71,556/- in 36   E.M.I.  monthly  installments @ Rs.14,480/- for the period from 10.07.2013  to  20.6.2016   (copies of the  loan documents and E.M.I 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 threatened  to seize the vehicle  by  using local Gundas in forcefully   which is arbitrary, whimsical. .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 paid total amount of Rs.2,99,556.00 to the O.Ps out of loan amount and interest of Rs.5,21,556/-. The complainant  is  liable to pay the entire E.M.I  to the O.Ps 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.

        Further the  O.Ps in their written version  mentioned citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court  reported in 2013(1) SC cases page No. 518 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “The finance company is legally authorized   to take physical  possession of the hypothecated vehicle in the event of breach of  hypothecation conditions”

On perusal of the  loan   statement of accounts filed by the O.Ps  it is revealed that   the complainant  has already  paid   total Rs. Rs.2,99,556.00 /- in different dates  from 20.7.2013 to 20.10.2016  towards  E.M.Is (copies  of the  payment  statement are  in the file  which  is marked as Annexure- 2 ).    Further it is revealed  that  the O.Ps had  claimed  an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-in their  statement of account  as on 20.10..2016 as against the due to pay a sum of Rs.2,,25,000/-by the complainant to the O.Ps. In turn the  complainant  found  no other alternative  had approached this forum  for  redressal of  their grievance.

For   better appreciation  this forum relied citation of the Apex Court.

It was held by the Apex court and reported   in CPJ 2004(1) page No. 1 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed   “That remedy under C.P. Act.,  1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of other  remedies  available  and that  under remedies  are available  in this Act”.

Further it is held and reported in  CPJ- 2002(3) page No.8 in the case  of   Dr. J.J.Merchant and ors  Vrs  Shrinath Chaturvedi  where in the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  in para -12 of the above judgement   “In our view this submission also requires to be rejected  because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial,  exhaustive procedure  in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.  Therefore, merely because  it is mentioned  that Commission or forum  is required to have summary trial  would hardly be a ground for directing  the consumer to approach the Civil Court.  For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed  procedure. Giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other  side, is not necessary.  It should be kept in mind  that legislature has   provided   alternative, remedy to the consumers  and that should  not be curtailed on such ground.  It would also be totally wrong    assumption that because summary trial is provided. Justice  can not be done when  same questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided.  The Act provides sufficient safeguards.  For   this purpose  we would refer the procedure prescribed  under the Act  for disposal   of the complaint

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. 5,21,556/- the complainant  has already been   paid a consolidated E.M.I. amount  sum of Rs.2,99,556/-. Remaining  E.M.I. amount of Rs.2,25,000/- is to  be deposited in  the counter  of the  O.Ps by the complainant.

Thus, in context of maintaining good relationship,  between bonafied  customer, this forum feel  it is just and proper that the O.P.  should have received  the balance  E.M.I.  from the complainant.

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   on contest.

The  complainant is directed to deposit outstanding E.M.I.  in the counter of the O.Ps   on  installment basis..

The O.Ps are ordered  to  supply  detailed   account statement  towards   E.M.I. already deposited  by the  complainant  till date   and balance  E.M.I.  to be deposited  by the complainant in  your counter.  Further  the  complainant  and O.Ps  are  directed  to   sit  together   in  the office of the   Sriram finance  and   fix  installments  to  close the loan  account and  if   EMI are not  deposited by the complainant  in time  for some or other reason then   the complainant is at liberty to refinance   the  above loan account in this connection the O.Ps shall cooperate the complainant  for the best  interest of justice. 

The   O.Ps are directed  to receive  only  balance E.M.I  from the complainant   and not to  charge any   Delayed payment surcharge and  interest   to the complainant.

Further the  O.Ps are directed to issue N.O.C. after receiving the outstanding E.M.Is from the  complainant towards  the above Tractor.   Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

The entire directions shall be carried out with in 6(six) months  from the  date of receipt   of this order.   Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.    Pronounced in the open forum on      25^th.  day of  February, 2021.

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT