Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member-This is a complaint praying for a direction to Ops not to dispose off the vehicle and direction may be given to Op1 to release the alleged vehicle along with a direction to Op3 not to change the ownership of the vehicle and also not to charge any amount further and to pay a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- to the complainant if the vehicle disposed off along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of Rs.15,000/- by the Op-1 & 2.
The brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant is a consumer of Ops 1&2 are the financer and availed loan for obtaining a Tata Tipper bearing Regd. No. OR-09 M-2216 in order to maintain her livelihood on execution of loan agreement with Op-1 & 2 and the loan to be repaid in 47 installments of Rs.27,620/- each except the first EMI of Rs.28,020/- but due to financial crunch as imposed restrictions by the Dist. Administration. Relating to transportation of iron ores and the complainant could be able to made payment of Rs.9,02,265/- till January 2014 and the complainant went to the office of the Op-1 & 2 for reschedulement of balance loan amount of Rs.3,68,655/- by virtue of one time settlement. But surprisingly the Op-1 seized the alleged vehicle of the complainant without prior notice by engaging antisocial Gundas on 24.01.14 at Banspani Road, Joda without giving inventory/ seizure list. Thereafter the complainant tried her level best for release of the alleged vehicle but the Ops did not pay any heed towards the request of the complainant and few days after the vehicle was sold to a 3rd party without giving presale notice which seems to be illegal trade practice and as such act of the Op-1 & 2 are deficient in rendering service and the complainant is entitle for compensation. Further, the A/C statement dated 29.01.14 DPC of Rs.2,19,996/- imposed on the complainant in spite of giving 20 nos. of post dated cheques to the Op-1 & 2 by violating the RBI guidelines and for which the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.7, 02, 000/- is the IDV value of the vehicle as per insurance policy certificate though the complainant paid Rs.9, 02, 265/- against the financed amount of Rs.08, 59, 000/- and hence, this complainant-
In support filed:
1. Copy of statement of A/C dt.29.01.14 - 5 sheets
2. Copy of stockyard release report - 1 sheet
3. Copy of R.C Book – 2 sheets
4. Copy of Insurance Policy – 2 sheets
After service of notice to Op-1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their version stating that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is an abuse of process of law and the averments made therein are vague, baseless and with malafide intention and also the complaint does not fall within the definition of a “consumer dispute” under the C.P Act 1986 as there is neither any unfair trade practice adopted by these Ops nor any deficiency of service established against these Ops and the complainant was a chronic defaulter of the installments and late part payments by the complainant has resulted in addition to delayed payment charges or accrued overdue charges along with remaining balance towards the installments for which grossly violated the terms of agreement and the transaction between both the parties is a contract wherein both parties have to perform their part obligation and as per contract the loan amount of Rs.8, 59, 000/- along with financial charges of Rs.3, 26, 420/- and insurance premium for 3 years of Rs.85,500/- in aggregating in total to pay a sum of Rs.12,70,920/- is the contract value to be repaid in 46 equated monthly installments starting from 02.12.2009 till 02.09.2013 and owing to default made by the complainant invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement, this Op referred the matter to the sole arbitrator and the complainant did not care to contest the matter and accordingly an exparte award dt.31.05.2013 was passed against the complainant and the copy was served to this complainant and due to default the Ops repossessed the alleged vehicle on 24.01.14 and presale notice dated 29.01.14 was sent to the complainant asking to pay off the dues and to take the vehicle and due to silent of the complainant the vehicle sold on 21.02.14 for an amount of Rs.5, 20,000/-. Hence the averments/ allegations made therein the complaint are frivolous, baseless and misc. conceived the same may be rejected in totality.
In support filed:
1. Copy of repayment details dt.08.12.14 - 14 sheets
2. Copy of Loan Agreement - 10 sheets
Further notice issued to Op-3 who was a proforma party arrayed as Op and the complainant has not sought for any reliefs against this Op-3 and during subsistence of the case never appeared nor filed any version since Op-3 is a Registering authority under whom the vehicle was registered.
Heard the contesting parties and perused the materials available in the records. It is not dispute that the complainant is a consumer of Ops and the vehicle financed by the Ops under an agreement of Hypothecation and if the Ops were deficient in rendering their service or not? Is to be decided as per allegation of the complainant.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Ops have repossessed the vehicle without intimation and prior notice and the vehicle sold away without presale notice sent to the complainant which is the act of Ops examples of illegal Trade practice and are deficient in rendering services to the complainant.
On the other hand the learned counsel for the Ops 1 & 2 submitted that, the transactions between the parties are of contractual in nature and both parties are to perform their obligation to the terms and conditions of contract and regarding PDC as enshrined in the complaint towards repayment of the loan installments has been regularly dishonored due to insufficient of funds maintained in the bank A/C of the complainant proves the malafide intention of the complainant and there has been no unfair trade practice adopted by the Ops 1 & 2 and not deficiency of service rendering on the part of these Ops.
In this context and on perusal of available documents in the records filed by the contesting parties it reveals that the instant complaint makes no ground for relief under the provisions of section-14 of C.P Act 1986 in the present case and there has been no unfair Trade practice adopted and no deficiency in service on the part of these Ops and the complaint raised several issues which involves disputed question of facts as well as law which requires deposition of evidence and trials can be only be done in Civil Court. Hence the complainant to agitate the alleged grievance is before civil court and the proceedings under C.P Act envisaged a summary procedure of complaint of simple nature. Hence the complaint petition of the complainant is dismissed having no merit.
Accordingly, the case is disposed of.
