Orissa

Cuttak

CC/149/2016

Jitendra Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B M Mohapatra

20 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.149/2016

 

Jitendra Pradphan,

Res. of Kapursingh,

PO:Oranda,P.S:Gurudi Jhatia,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

The Branch Manager,

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

Branch Office at Plot No.692/A/4,

3^rd Floor,Manisha Plaza,Link Road,

PO:Arunodaya Market,

Town/Dist:Cuttack & another.                                                 … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:    17.11.2016

Date of Order:  20.10.2017

 

For the complainant  :           Sri B.M.Mohapatra,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P No.1 & 2.:           None

.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

The case is against deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

1.            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a motor cycle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-14-4611, by taking finance from O.P No.1 and the vehicle was registered with R.T.O,Cuttack.(Annexure-1).  The cost of the vehicle was Rs.58,296/- and the complainant paid for insurance and road tax and the down payment amounting to Rs.17,543/-.  While availing financial assistance from the O.P. Company, he executed an agreement but excluding the repayment schedule, the copy of such agreement or copy of any other document(s) was supplied to the complainant.  The loan amount was to be repaid in 22 nos. of monthly installments @ Rs.2129/- each.   The commencement date of E.M.I was 04.03.15 and the date of expiry of the agreement was 05.01.17.    The complainant was repaying E.M.I dues to the O.P Company regularly.  Due to occurrence of frequent defects in his vehicle and also due to his illness the complainant could not pay three installments for which   the O.P illegally and forcibly repossessed the vehicle on 21.10.2016 at 4.30 P.M. The complainant requested the recovery squad not to seize the vehicle and he also assured to repay the defaulted E.M.Is but the O.P did not pay any heed to such a request.  They did not issue seizure list to the complainant.  After seizure of the vehicle, the complainant visited the office of the O.P No.1, requested him to release the vehicle and expressed that he is ready to pay the defaulted E.M.I dues.  But O.P refused to release the vehicle and O.P No.1 did not supply the statement of account of his loan which amounts to deficiency in service.

2.            On 18.11.2016 this Hon’ble Forum issued an interim order directing the O.Ps to release the vehicle by accepting up-to-date E.M.Is up to the date of seizure. 

3.            The O.P No.1 though entered appearance but did not file the written version and the O.P No.2 did neither enter appearance nor file written version, both the O.Ps were set exparte on 12.10.2017.

4.            We have heard the counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the documents and papers.  Though it is mentioned in the complaint petition that the money receipts are annexed but in fact the money receipts are not found from the record.  In absence of any document except the registration certificate, it is difficult to ascertain about the repayment of E.M.Is.  It was held by Hon’ble National Commission vide Revision petition No.778 of 2011 that “taking possession of vehicle on ground of non-repayment of installments is legal right of financier.” [2017(2) CPR-95-NC].  Since the complainant has admitted that he had not paid 3 nos. of E.M.Is as on the date of seizure, we conclude that the O.Ps are not at fault for repossessing the vehicle.  In the present case there is nothing to show that the vehicle was repossessed illegally or forcibly.  Mere fact that the repossession was taken by O.P finance company, cannot be the ground to contend that the O.P finance company is prejudiced.

                                                            ORDER

Since the complainant has failed to repay the installments, the O.P finance company is not at fault for repossessing the vehicle.  However it was learnt that the copy of agreement was not given to the complainant.  Hence the O.P No.1 is directed to supply the copy of documents such as loan agreement and up-to-date statement of accounts relating to the loan account of the complainant.    The O.P Bank is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and harassment of the complainant for not supplying the copy of loan agreement and up-to-date accounts statement.  O.P Bank will also pay a further sum of Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.  The above payments and supply of documents to the complainants shall be made within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such orders.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 20^th   day of November,2017  under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

  ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                         Member (W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                 President

                                                                                                          (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                 Member