Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/124

Sri Senapati Sekhar Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Self

09 Apr 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

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

C.C. Case  No.   124 / 2015                                      Date.     9   .     04  . 2021.

P R E S E N T .

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                              Member

 

Sri Senapati Sekhar Rao, S/o; Sri S.Rama Rao, Ashok Nagar, Ist.lane,  Po/Dist:    Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                                                                                                …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The  Branch Manager, M/S.Sriram Transport Finance Company, Door No.6-6-23, Chinnari complex, Kangati street, Parvatipuram, Dist:Vizayanagaram, Po/Dist: Rayagada.
2. The Regional Manager, M/S. Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., 12,AngappaNaicken street,  Chennai-600001. Tamilnadu state.

.…..Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the parties:                                 

For the complainant: - Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada

For the O.Ps   :- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate,Rayagada.

 

                                                JUDGEMENT.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps  not to repossess the Truck  bearing  Regd. No. OR-18-B-2169 and  to receive the E.M.I. amount as and when deposited by the complainant  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.Ps.   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  second  hand  Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn.  No.OR-18-C-4654  for   a sum of Rs.7,80,000/-  vide  hypothecation  loan  agreement  No.  PARVAO301040006  on Dt. 20.02.2013. The complainant was to pay  the total amount  of  Rs.10,49,758/- which was also included the finance  charges a sum of  Rs.2,69,758/-, in 33   E.M.I.  monthly  installments for the period from 20.02.2013  to  20.10.2015   (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  where as the last date of agreement  will be  expired on  20.10.2015.Hence 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 O.Ps have also paid the insurance  premiums. The complainant  is 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. 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.

On perusal of the  loan   money receipt filed  by the  complainant  it is revealed that   the complainant  has already  paid   total Rs.5,29,419/- in different dates  from 20.2.2013 to 31.5.2015  towards  E.M.Is (copies  of the  money receipts   and  payment  statement are  in the file  which  is marked as Annexure- 2 to 03).    Further it is revealed  that  the O.Ps had  claimed  an amount of Rs.9,55,807/-in their  statement of account  as on 5.8.2015 as against the due to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,339/- by the complainant to the O.Ps (copies of the statement of account Dt. 5.8.2015 of the O.P is in the file which is marked as Annexure-4). In turn the  complainant  found  no other alternative  had approached this forum  for  redressal of  their grievances  on Dt. 07.08.2015.

The complainant  in their complaint petition admitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,29,419/- as on Dt. 31.05.2015. The O.Ps have also entered in their  accounts statement that the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.5,29,419/-. 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 orsVrsShrinathChaturvedi  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. 10,49,758/- the complainant  has already been   paid a consolidated E.M.I. amount  sum of Rs.5,29,419/-. Remaining  E.M.I. amount of Rs.5,20,339/- 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 District  Commission  feel  it is just and proper that the O.Ps.  should have receive  the balance  E.M.Is  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.Is. in the counter of the  O.Ps on  installment basis  within 6 months.  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.  PARVA0301040006 of  second  hand  Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn.  No.OR-18-C-4654  infavour of the complainant.   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 District  Commission  on          9  ^th. .     day of      April, 2021.

 

                                                MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT