Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/178/2021

Subhra Ranjan Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.C.Mishra

02 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                                                   JUDGMENT

 

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

            “Direct the opposite parties to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant without imposing stockyard charge and repossession charge”.

            The brief fact of the case is that the complainant was unemployed and availed a loan amounting to Rs.39,25,000/- from the opposite parties on dtd.25.12.2020 to purchase a goods carriage vehicle (HGV) Tata LPT 48258SVI10X2 bearing Regd. No.OD-05-BB-1075. As per loan-cum-hypothecation agreement the loan amount was to be paid along with interest in 59 monthly installments amounting to Rs.88,521/- each. The tenure of repayment started on 21.3.2021 and is extended up to 21.02.2026. The vehicle of the complainant is a new vehicle and till date only seven installments are covered out of which the complainant has paid five installments and the last installment of Rs.90,000/-  has been paid on 28.9.2021 and 30.9.2021. But disregarding the ethics of business the vehicle of the complainant was repossessed by the opposite parties on dtd.07.10.2021 and has been kept in a stockyard at Sambalpur. The default in paying two EMIs is not intentional or deliberate rather it is an outcome of dull market situation rendered by outbreak of Covid-19 2^nd phase from April, 2021 to July, 2021. During this period the complainant managed to pay all EMIs except two EMIs and the opposite parties intentionally repossessed the vehicle.  The vehicle loaded with cement which is destroyable in nature put the complainant in serious loss and trouble; unless the vehicle of the complainant is released at earliest the complainant shall suffer irreparable loss. The opposite parties have never issued any pre-repossession notice, legal notice, or any demand notice to the complainant prior to the re-possession which essentially beyond the existing law.

            This Commission vide order dtd.11.10.2021 pass the following order “Heard the advocate for the complainant ex-parte. Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. Hence considering the circumstances, issue notice to the opposite parties to file objection if any but in the meantime the opposite parties are directed to release the asset (vehicle) bearing Regd. No.OD-05-BB-1075, Chassis No.MAT8200003L1N08541, Engine No.86786A250002102L64129933 in favour of the complainant on receipt of Rs.50,000/- within 15 days not demanding other charges and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.29.10.2021. And also complainant is directed to pay his monthly EMI regularly.” The complainant himself did not comply with order dtd.11.10.2021 and failed to pay the EMI regularly. The outstanding of Rs.39,51,949/- was pending against the complainant. The bank has already auctioned the vehicle much prior to receipt of order dtd.29.3.2022 passed in misc case No.31/2021. The opposite parties have also raise the question of maintainability as the complainant and his father have taken several vehicles for commercial purpose as such complainant is not a consumer.

Since the vehicle in question has already been auctioned and the complainant was himself in default in paying the EMI in time we hold that complainant has failed to make out a case and accordingly the consumer complaint is dismissed. In view of the facts stated above order passed in consumer complaint No.178/2021 and E.A. No.06/2022 has also become infructous. Accordingly both the cases are dismissed. No cost.

 

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 2^nd August, 2022.