Orissa

Cuttak

CC/122/2019

Sudhir Kumar Rout,chairman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Head,Tata Motors Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

11 Nov 2022

ORDER

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

C.C.No.122/2019

Sudhir Kumar Rout,Chairman,

St. Xavier’s Foundatiion for Internatiional Education,

At:Imamnagar,IPICOL Square,

PO/PS:Jagatpur,Near IPICOL,Jagatpur,

Cuttack-754021,Odisha,India.                                                              ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Head,

Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,Branch Code:FSBU,

Branch Name:Bhubaneswar BR,1^st Floor,Kesari

Talkies Complex,Kharvel Nagar,

Bhubaneswar-751001,Odisha,India.

 

2.        The Head, Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,1^st Floor,

Kailash Plaza,Link Road,Cuttack-753010,Odisha,India.

 

3.       The Head, Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,I-Think Techno Campus,

                            Building A,2^nd Floor,Off Pokharan Road,

                            2,Thane West-400601,Maharashatra,India.

 

4.        The Head,(Managing Director),

Tata Motors Finance Ltd,Regd. Office,Market Chember-3,10^th Floor,

106 A & 106 B,

Nariman Point-400021,Maharashtra,India.                                    ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:     03.10.2019

Date of Order:   11.11.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps               :          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                           

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had purchased a TATA Winger Monocoque vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-Y-6233 from Trupti Automotives, Cuttack on 7.1.17 after obtaining loan from the O.Ps vide Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement No.5002196273.  The complainant had agreed to repay the loan in 59 E.M.Is out of which the first E.M.I was to be of Rs.20,199/- whereas the rest of the E.M.Is would be @ Rs.20,050/-.  The value of the contract was of Rs.11,83,099/- and L.I.C of Rs.1,17,424/- effective from January,2018 to January,2022.  The policy was being renewed from time to time but after a period of one year, the complainant found that the overdue charges on his loan account has been levied for which he had to contact the O.Ps and could know that there was a deficit amount of Rs.28,299/- overdue with a sum of  Rs.4,475/- thereon towards net overdue interest.  The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.16,010/- on 6.8.2018 but could know thereafter that the overdue charges have also been levied on his loan account for which he deliberately defaulted the payment of instalment for the month of February,2019 in order to reflect his resentment.  Subsequently, he had resumed the regular payment of his instalments but when the matter was not resolved by the O.Ps, he had to file this case praying therein for refund of the unreasonable excess insurance premium for the financial year 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020 for amounts of Rs.12,203/- and Rs.10,878/- and all the charges cumulative on it over time with interest and has also claimed compensation towards his mental harassment to the tune of Rs.3,95,000/- and further to any reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            He has filed copies of certain document in order to prove his case.

2.         All the O.Ps no.1,2,3 & 4 have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly.  According to them, the petition of the complainant being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant has not approached with clean hands, nor had he paid the E.M.Is as per the terms of the agreement and had rather misled this Commission.  The O.Ps had already resorted to arbitration for the dispute between themselves with the complainant and the learned Arbitrator had already adjudicated the proceeding by passing award on 28.11.19.  They admit that through Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement, they had financed for the vehicle of the complainant a sum of Rs.11,83,099/- out of which Rs.7,80,000/- was the financed amount, Rs.2,85,675/- is towards the finance charges and insurance was to the tune of Rs.1,17,424/-.  The said amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 59 number of instalments with effect from 11.2.17 to 11.12.21 @ Rs.20,,050/-, but the first instalment was of Rs.20,199/-.  When the complainant defaulted in making payment, accordingly overdue charges and interest thereon was levied as per the terms of the agreement and thus, the petition as filed by the complainant being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.

            The O.Ps have also filed copies of documents as regards to the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement etc. to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him ?

Issue no.ii.

            Out of the three issues, issue no.iii being the pertinent issue is taken up first to be considered here in this case.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a TATA Winger Monocoque vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-05-Y-6233 by obtaining finance from the O.Ps for which he had executed the Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement with them.  Thus, he is bound by the terms and conditions as envisaged therein and breach or violation of such terms and conditions would warrant overdue charges alongwith interest thereon.  As it appears from the complaint petition itself, the complainant had defaulted in making payment of the E.M.Is regularly for which overdue charges with interest thereon were levied on his loan account.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in the service of the O.Ps here in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

            As it appears from the written version of the O.Ps, that they had sought for arbitration proceeding and the learned Arbitrator had passed award in this case on 28.11.19.  The complainant has not disputed the said averment of the O.Ps.  Moreso, the O.Ps have also filed the arbitration award copy alongwith their written version.  Thus, it cannot be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

            Case is dismissed on contest against all the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost and the interim stay is hereby vacated permanently.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 11^th day of   November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                                  Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                                Member