DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………..
Presents:-
- Sri AK.Purohit,President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 11th day of January 2018.
C.C.No. 42 of 2016.
1.Pradyut Kumar Mishra, age-46 years so of late Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra,
Resident of Thikadarpada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
2.Laxma Kumar Purohit, age-50 years so of late Sachidananda Purohit,
Resident of Gandhinagarpada, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir.
3.Sanjeeb Kumar Panda, age-32 years son of Pitabas Panda, Resident of
Rajendra College Road, Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. .. Complainants.
-Versus-
The Branch Manager, Magma JFincorp Ltd. At-1st Floor,
Near Union Bank, Balaji Mid Town,Backside of PNB ATM
Dehri Pali, Budharaja, Sambalpur- 768004. Odisha.
.. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the Complainants-Sri P.K.Mishra & Associates.
Adv. for the Opp.Party - Sri B.S.Satpathy.
Date of filing of the case- 26.07.2016
Date of order - 11.01.2018
JUDGMENT.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. All the three complainants have preferred this case jointly having common interest and same cause of action. The complainant No.1 had purchased a TATA Mini Bus of Model LP1510152 having Regd. No.OR-03-A-3879, for a consideration of Rs 6,50,000/- with the financial assistance of the O.P and paid the initial payment of Rs 2,62,000/- to the dealer out of the total consideration amount. The complainant No.3 is the guarantor for the said loan transaction. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the complainant No.1 had repaid all the amounts financed by the O.P .But on dt.23.07.2010 the O.P demanded an out-standing amount of Rs 48.604/- for the said finance and again on dt.15.06.2016 the O.P demanded an out-standing amount of Rs 4,00,531/- towards the aforesaid loan. The complainant alleges that, although all the loan amount have already repaid as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, demanding the aforesaid amount is misuse of power and amounts to unfair trade practice. Further the complainants have alleged that, the O.P had received an excess amount of Rs 2,364/- towards insurance of the vehicle which is unfair. Hence the complaint.
2. The O.P has contested the case by filing his written version. According to the O.P as per the agreement dt.15.02.2004 the O.P agreed to advance a loan amount of Rs 3,90,000/- and the complainant ;agreed to pay a sum of Rs 1,33,500/- towards finance charges and hence the O.P claims a total amount of Rs 4,23,500/- towards the contract value. The O.P has stated that, the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and a huge amount were out-standing towards EMI. Hence the O.P claims for the same including the delayed payment charges and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
3. Both parties are absent on the adjourned date of hearing of the case. Perused the pleadings and material available on record. It is seen from the hypothecation agreement available on record that, the O.P financed a sum of Rs 3,90,000/- to the complainant No.1 for purchase of an old bus which is repayable in 29 monthly installments commencing from 15.02.2004. Therefore the contention of the O.P in his written version for an extra charges of Rs 1,33,500/- towards finance charges cannot be accepted in the; absence of any believable evidence. In the aforesaid document the fiancé charge has been calculated @ 10.3% amounting to Rs 97,500/- which amount has to be repaid by the complainant.
3. Now the point for consideration is that whether the complainant No.1 has already repaid the loan amount as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement or not. Neither parties has produced the account statement of the loan account. Therefore this forum has directed the O.P for production of status report for proper adjudication of the matter vide order dt.26.7.2017, but the O.P did not choose to produce the same. This conduct of the O.P shows that, he is not fair in dealing with his customer. Hence it is believed that the complainant had already repaid the entire loan amount. In his written version the O.P has not specifically pleaded that, how many installments are out-standing towards loan amount.
5. With these materials available on record it is beli4ved that the complainant has already repaid the loan amount and is entitled to the NOC. Hence ordered;
ORDER.
The O.P is directed to refund the excess insurance amount of Rs 2,364/- to the complainant No.1 and is directed not to demand any money towards loan amount of the complainant No.1 and shall issue NOC in his favour within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further the O.P is directed to pay Rs 10,000/- towards cost and compensation to the complainant No.1 within the aforesaid time.
Accordingly the case is disposed off.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
