C.C. No.40/2022

Prabir Kumar Samantray,

S/o. Kurshna Chandra Samantray,

At- Santara,

P.O.- Mangarajpur,

P.S.- Kujang,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.………Complainant

​

1. The Managing Director/ Head of Organization

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

Dare House, 1^st Floor,

2 N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys,

Chennai, Tamilnadu- 600001.

2. The Regional Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

No.559, 1^st Floor, Annapurna Complex,

Lewis Road, Puri – Cuttack Road,

Bhubaneswar- 751014,

Dist.- Khurda.

3. The Branch Manager,

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd.,

At- 2^nd Floor, Bhaskar Complex, IFFCO Square,

P.S.- Paradeep Lock, Paradeep,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur- 754142.

4. Road Transport Officer, Cuttack.                         …..… Opposite parties                 

For Complainant………..Mr. R. Mohanty & Associates

For O.P. No.1 to 3………..Mr. M.C. Swain, Advocate

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                                JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant purchased an Ashok Leyland Truck being financed of Rs.31,08,138/- by opposite parties No.1 to 3 on 23.7.2020 with applicable interest thereon has to be repaid in 55 EMIs @ Rs.75,550/-  and the duration of repayment was from 25.8.2020 to 25.02.2025. Due to different waves of Covid-19 pandemic, the transport business suffered a stand still situation and the said vehicle could not be plied in spite of best efforts and the business was severely hampered for which some default in payment of EMIs occurred. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 pressurized and forced the complainant to restructure the EMIs and accordingly the repayment schedule was restructured but the pandemic situation did not improve and payment of EMIs became irregular and by taking advantage of situation, the opposite parties by violating all the principles of law and natural justice and illegally and forcefully repossessed the said vehicle on 26.01.2022 without giving the seizure/inventory list to the complainant and threatened to sale the vehicle to some other body.

            Opposite parties No.1 to 3 have filed their written version stating as under;

            As per application of complainant opposite parties financed the loan for purchased a vehicle and complainant agreed to repay the said loan of Rs.33,05,238/- with interest thereon @12.02% per annum in 79 EMIs of Rs.75,550/- commencing from 25.8.2020 to 25.021.2027 as mentioned in the repayment schedule. The complainant was extremely reluctant to pay the said installments within time as provided under the said agreement, despite repeated notices and reminders and personal follow up by the officers of opposite parties the complainant neglected and failed to make payment of his dues. The complainant had surrendered the vehicle in favour of the opposite parties on 02.02.2022 empowering the opposite parties to sale the vehicle and adjust the sale proceeds against his dues and further acknowledge and undertaken to remit the shortfall if any after the sale of the vehicle. There after the inventory/seizure was made by the opposite parties. 

            This Commission vide order dt.15.12.2022 directed as under;

            “Opposite parties in their written version stated that the complainant has surrendered the vehicle with the opposite parties on 02.02.2022 which the complainant has disputed. Send this letter dtd.02.02.2022 along with the signatures of the complainant in other places like agreement, plaint copy and other documents in the records to the Laboratory for obtaining expert opinion. Besides that complainant is also directed to appear before this Commission along with his counsel and counsel for opposite parties and give his signatures in plain paper and after obtaining the signatures and one set of documents from both the parties send the letter dtd.02.02.2022 to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar to get the expert report/opinion as to whether the signature appearing on letter dtd.02.02.2022 is of the complainant or not (surrendered letter from the customer) is of the complainant or not. Cost of the examination is to be borne by the complainant who has disputed the signature on letter dtd.02.02.2022 opinion as to whether the signature on letter dtd.02.02.2022. Registry is directed to communicate with Director of F.S.L.”

            The report of CFSL was received by this Commission and placed before us on 08.8.2024, which is as under;

Case No.40/2022                                                Bureau No.DP-03/2024

            I am to opinion that the person who wrote the red enclosed specimen signatures which I have stamped & marked as S-1 to S-36 and the admitted signatures whose photocopies have been stamped & marked by me as A-1 to A-9, did not write the red enclosed disputed signature which I have stamped and marked as Q-1.

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                              (Sachidananda Sahoo)

                                              Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents

                                               CID, CB, HWB, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar.

            From the findings of the report of CFSL it is crystal clear that the vehicle was repossessed and sold adopting unfair means by forging the signature of complainant, which in our considered opinion amounts to unfair trade practice as defined U/s.2 (47) of Consumer Protection Act.

            The auction purchaser has already filed intervention petition who is running the vehicle since 2022 and in such situation we held that auction purchaser is not a consumer and he has no locostandi against the complainant and for any loss cause to him he can sue the financer/opposite parties who has sold the vehicle adopting fraudulent means. So we reject the intervention petition filed by the intervener/auctioneer/2^nd hand purchaser.  

            Since the vehicle has been sold by opposite parties after 2 years by opposite parties and in order to settle the dispute between the parties we held that the opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable to refund the entire amount which the complainant has paid to opposite parties, truck show, room, body building company with 8% compound interest from the date of auction to till date of payment and we also award cost of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and Rs.6,000/- towards cost of CFSL to be paid to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the rate of interest shall be 10% compound instead of 8% compound interest. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.         

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th Sept.,2024.