Orissa

Rayagada

CC/250/2016

Babuli Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

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

C.C. Case  No.   250/ 2016.                                      Date.    15    .     5  . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri Gadadhara   Sahu,                                                                     Member.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Babuli Naik,   S/O: Daitari Naik,  At: Amalabhata, Near Govt. School,  Penta, Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

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

.…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1  :- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate,.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non issue  of  NOC towards finance vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn.  No.OR-18-B-7578  after payment of the loan amount    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.P    put in their appearance and filed  written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P    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.P  No.1 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P    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  second  hand  Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn.  No.OR-18-B-7578     for   a sum of Rs.2,13,000/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  PARVAO412300002  on Dt. 30.12.2014. The complainant was to pay  the total amount  of  Rs.3,17,548/- which was also included the finance  charges a sum of  Rs.1,04,548/-, in 33   E.M.I.  monthly  installments for the period from 30.12.2014  to  5.9.2017  @  Rs.9,591.00  each E.M.I. (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  he had deposited  the E.M.I. timely.  In spite  of deposited E.M.I. the O.Ps  till date has not issued  N.O.C. towards the finance vehicle.  Hence this case.

        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 O.P has also paid the insurance  premium for the year 2015 and 2016 @ Rs.23,574/- and Rs.27,181/- respectively in total the loan dues comes to Rs. 5,46,186/-. The complainant  liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms agreement.

On perusal of the  loan   money receipt filed  by the  complainant  it is revealed that   the complainant  has already  paid   total Rs.1,12,000/- in different dates  from 20.1.2015 to 21.6.2016  towards  E.M.Is (copies  of the  money receipts   are  in the file  which  is marked as Annexure- 2 to 13).    Further it is revelaled  that  the O.P has issued  defult notice  in favour  of the complainant and Guarantor during the monh of  August, 2016  for payment of  default  E.M.Is.(copies of the  Default notice is in the file which is marked as  Annexure-14).  In turn the  complainant  found  no other alternative  approached this forum  for  redressal of  their grievances  on Dt. 26.8.2016.

        The   complainant  in their C.C. petition  has made grievance that  as per the available receipts the complainant has  paid more than  the finance amount to the O.P. and they have not accounted the deposits for  the months  10/2014,  12/2014,  2/2015,  3/2015,  4/2015,  6/2015,  9/2015,  3/2016 a sum  of   Rs. 80,000/-  and their collection  agent  has not deposited the money with the O.P.

        The  O.P. in their written version  contended that   it is most strange to say that  when   a single installment has been paid by him is not properly accounted how the complainant further  paid the installments to the same person.   If such a  huge amount  has not been accounted for and collected by the agent the complainant should have report to the police  and also given  written complaint to the  O.P. mention the  name of the agent.  

        In this regard the complainant has not filed any documentary  evidence  regarding  action   taken against the collection agent. Further  the complainant has not filed any supporting documents   or connected correspondence  filed by the complainant to substantiate payment of premium to the collection agent, as such the prayer sought against the  O.P. shall not  withstand before the eye  of law. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint against the O.P. He may take legal action  against collection agent  for recovery of the deposited amount  in  appropriate  court  having  jurisdiction   for proper adjudication and examination in order to ascertain the veracity  of the claim as made out by the complainant,   but not before this forum  as  this is a summary procedure of trials..

        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. 3,17,548/- the complainant  has already been   paid a consolidated E.M.I. amount  sum of Rs.1,12,000/-. Remaining  E.M.I. amount of Rs.2,05,548/- is to  be deposited in  the counter  of the  O.P 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. a sum of Rs. 2,05,548/-with 9% simple  interest per annum  from the date of default till realization 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 against  O.Ps  on contest.

The  complainant is directed to deposit outstanding E.M.I. a sum of Rs. Rs.2,05,548/-  with  9%  simple interest per annum from the date of default till realization. Further the  O.Ps are directed to issue N.O.C. after receiving the outstanding E.M.Is from the  complainant towards  loan  agreement  No.  PARVAO412300002 of  second  hand  Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn.  No.OR-18-B-7578  in favour of the complainant.   Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

The  complainant is at his liberty  to take legal action against the collection agent for his recovery of the amount paid that have not deposited before the O.Ps against the loan account of the vehicle

 

            The entire directions shall be carried out with in 3 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           15 ^th. .     day of    May, 2019.

 

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT