Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/22

Anil Kumar Choudhary - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Bermo - Opp.Party(s)

S.P. Singh

27 Dec 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-02-02-2017

Date of final hearing-27-12-2022

 Date of Order-27-12-2022

Case No. 22/2017

Anil Kumar Choudhary S/o Deo Narayan Choudhary

R/o- Kargali No. 3 Dhori, Phusro, P.S.- Bermo,

District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

The Branch Manager, UCO Bank

Bermo, Branch, District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                   Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Both parties are absent. None turned up on behalf of any of the parties on repeated call. It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long.  Hence as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c ) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.

 

2. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- towards loss of price of the vehicle. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased truck bearing registration No. JH-09-T-8530 which was financed by the O.P. UCO Bank and its EMI was being deposited but due to illness of the complainant he was under treatment from 23.09.2013 to 28.07.2014 and meanwhile said truck was seized in connection with Katras P.S. Case No. 272/2013 dt. 24.09.2013 u/s 414/34 IPC which was released on 16.07.2014 on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 22,00,000/- with two sureties. Further case is that complainant received a pleader notice dt. 29.12.2014 for deposit of entire loan amount related to account No. 02470610002872 and thereafter, he received demand notice of recovery officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 14.12.2015 mentioning therein Rs. 31,93,851/- along with pendentelite and future interest @ 10% per annum from 30.06.2014 and meanwhile vehicle concerned has been auctioned in that very proceeding on Rs. 11,00,000/- though it was insured for more amount. Complainant was ready to deposit the installment after release of the vehicle but meanwhile it has been sold. Inspite of issuance of legal notice it was not replied hence this case has been filed.
3. O.P. has filed W.S. mentioning therein that vehicle concerned was financed by this O.P. UCO Bank for Rs. 23,31,248/- and it was hypothecated but due to non deposit of loan installment demand notice as per law was issued to the complainant for repayment of debts with interest which was not complied nor replied hence O.P. approached Debts Recovery Tribunal ( in short DRT) at Ranchi vide Original Application No. 157/2015 and inspite of due service of summon complainant has not appeared thereafter vide order of the Tribunal complainant was directed to pay the dues within 2 months which was not complied hence vehicle was put on auction sale which was sold on Rs. 11,50,000/- and thereafter this case has been filed to frustrate the order of DRT.
4. On the basis of above pleadings we have to see whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed or not?
5. On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the filing of case in respect to recovery of the loan amount before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is admitted fact. Another admitted fact is that concerned vehicle was sold in auction sale proceeding related to Debts Recovery Tribunal O A No. 157/2015. Therefore, it is very much clear that if complainant was having any grievance then he would have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi which has acted under the provision of law but instead of appearing before the DRT this complainant has filed this case before this Forum with view to frustrate the provision related to DRT. Therefore, it is very much clear that impliedly this complainant has attempted before this Commission for Revision/Review/ Appeal of the order passed by the DRT in O.A. No. 157/2015 for which this Commission is having no jurisdiction. In this view of matter present case is not maintainable before this Commission. Accordingly it is being dismissed and in the facts of this case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                       President

                                                                                               

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•