Orissa

Rayagada

CC/128/2021

Sri Prasant Bag - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, TVS Credit Serivices Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

18 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.128/2021                                                      .

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri  Prasant  Bag, S/O: Pitambar  Bag,   AT: Seriguda, Baraja   Po/   Dist: Rayagada,  State:Odisha, 765 001.  Cell No.8895639077..                                                                                                                                            … Complainant.

            Versus.

1. The  Branch Manager, TVS  Credit Services  Ltd.,  T.V.S Show  Room,  J..K.Road,  Rayagada.

                                                                   …. Opposite parties

 

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant:  Self.

For the O.P. :-  Sri  J.K.Patnaik Advocate,  Jeypore.

.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    towards cheque bounce  charges imposed  on the complainant   with out any  fault   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.P put in their appearance  through their learned counsel  and filed written version 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,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  Hence the O.P   prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

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

This commission   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 finance from the O.Ps for his livelihood and  had  purchased two wheeler viz TVS  APACHI  ATR  160  Regd. No. OD-18-H-6990.      Undisputedly  the complainant  had   availed finance on Dt. 22.10.2020  an  advance amount a sum of Rs. 49,807/   along with  interest  Rs.11,657/ to pay the loan amount in monthly  installments @ Rs.2,561/  starts from   3.12.2020   consisting  24  months which is  in force for the  above Bike   vide  agreement No.OR3088TW0044734.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  he had deposited  the E.M.I. 8 Nos.   a sum of Rs. 20,488/-  till 7.8.2021.   Due to imposed cheque bounce charges for mis matching  the signature a sum of Rs.3,600/-   the objected the same  hence this  C.C. case filed for redressal of his  grievance.

        The  O.P. in their written version contended that   as per the loan agreement he had not  repaid the loan amount as per the E.M.Is for  which the complainant is liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms and conditions  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms of agreement.

The  O.P. in their written version contended  that the complainant  has not came in clean  hand before the District commission  and has suppressed some material facts. The complainant is a chronic  defaulter in repaying the loan dues and he has never made payment of the installments as per agreed terms and conditions for which  huge amount of loan amount  remain unpaid  as such the  O.Ps  have  requested  to the complainant for repay the loan dues as per agreement.

Admittedly   the complainant has admitted that  he has defaulted in repaying the regular installments due to imposed  cheque bounce charges and under takes to repay all the pending installments within  few  months.  The O.Ps. had never  intention to seize the vehicle of the complainant as no such documents have been  filed by the complainant in this context before the commission .

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 Honble 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 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  done by the O.P. In the instant case.   we are also  of the opinion  that  the O.P. should  not  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.

It is observed that   the complainant  till date   has paid   total  8 Nos.  of    E.M.I  a sum of Rs..20,488/   till 7.8.2021.

The O.Ps  In their  written version  challenging the maintainability of the case filed by the complainant. Such disputes shall be  settled by conciliation or arbitration as provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

During the course of hearing the learned counsel  for the complainant  relied  citation  it is held and reported  in C.P.R. 2014(3) page No. 574 the Hon’ble Supreme Court  wherein  observed  in para 29  The remedy of arbitration is not the only remedy available to a borrower. Rather it  is  an optional remedy. He can either seek  reference to an arbitrator or file a complaint under the Consumer Act.  If the borrower   opts for the remedy of arbitration, then it may be possible to say that he cannot  subsequently, file complaint under the Consumer Act. However he  chooses  to file a complaint in the first instance before the competent Consumer Forum, then he can not be denied  relief by invoking  Section -8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.  More over, the plain language of Section-3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986  makes it clear that the  remedy available in that Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of  any other law for the time being in force.

 

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  complainant is directed to deposit   the  E.M.I. regularly  without fail.

            The O.Ps are directed shall  not charge overdue penal interest beyond the guide lines fixed by the R.B.I.   and  can not be seize  repossess without  observing  due process of  law.  The O.Ps are further directed  shall not  seize  above finance two wheeler  forcefully and without assigning any notice before seizure.

          The O.Ps are  further directed not to deduct  the cheque bounce charges  from the complainant.

            The interim order passed  by this commission  on Dt.7..8.2021  made final  with the above direction. Parties are left to bear their own cost.

.

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

Dictated and corrected by me.  

Pronounced  on this         18  th.     Day of    December. ,   2021.

 

 

                                                Member.                                                      President