Orissa

Rayagada

CC/83/2021

Sri Govinda Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

the Manager Mahindra Finance Service Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

C.C. Case  No. 83           / 2021.                                    Date.      10.      12.2021

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Gobinda  Naik ,  At::Badamaribhata,  Po: Gorakhapur, Dist:Rayagada, 765 015,  Cell  No.6370578489..  …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd. Branch Office, Rayagada.

2.The Manager, Corporate office- Mahindra & Mahindra Financial services Ltd.,Sadhana house, 2^nd. floor, Behind Mahindra towers, 570, P.B.Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 018.     … Opposite parties.

For the complainant:- Self.

For the O.Ps:- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                ORDER.

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  not   to take repossession  of Mahindra Bolero  SLX2WD- BS2 bearing Regd. No. OR-10G-1000

which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The   brief  facts   of the case are summarized here under.

That  the complainant  had  availed refinance from the O.Ps for his livelihood and  had  purchased vehicle viz: Mahindra Bolero  SLX2WD- BS2 bearing Regd. No. OR-10G-1000. The complainant  had   availed refinance on Dt. 23.1.2021  an  advance amount a sum of Rs. 90,000/-   along with  interest  Rs.8,160/- to pay the loan amount in monthly  installments @ Rs.8,180/-  starts from   23.1.2021  to 15.12.2021 which is  in force for the  above vehicle. That  the  complainant has  already  paid total amount a sum of Rs. 16,387/-   i.e.  2(two)    installments to the O.Ps for the above   vehicle.  Due to Covid-19  and non running of  above vehicle daily  so the complainant  has not paid the  outstanding  E.M.I.  So the complainant  not in a position to deposit the E.M.I. The O.Ps threatened   to seize the  above  vehicle. The District commission  be directed the  O.Ps to receive the outstanding E.M.I. as and when  any amount deposited by the complainant  and such other relief  as the District Commission  deems fit and proper  for the best interest of justice.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps    put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act,  The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.   Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly   the complainant  had   availed refinance  vide agreement No. 7190653   on Dt. 23.1.2021  an  advance amount a sum of Rs. 90,000/-   along with  interest  Rs.8,160/- to pay the loan amount in monthly  installments  consist  of 12  (twelve) E.M.I. @ Rs.8,180/-  starts from   23.1.2021  to 15.12.2021.   Undisputedly   the  complainant has  already  paid total amount a sum of Rs. 16,387/-   i.e.  2(two)    installments to the O.Ps for the above   vehicle.

The main grievance of the complainant  was that  due to Covid-19  he had not deposited  the  outstanding    E.M.I. timely  in the counter of the O.Ps.  Hence this  C.C. case  filed by the complainant  before the  Commission.

The  O.P. in their written version contended that   as per the loan agreement he has not  repaid the loan amount as per the E.M.Is.   The complainant has paid total  2(two)  No.  E.M.I. amount   a  sum  of Rs.16,387.00 to the O.Ps out of refinance  loan amount and interest of Rs.98,160/- The complainant  is  liable to pay the entire loan dues with updated interest as per the terms  of the agreement since he has fully violated  the terms agreement. Further the O.Ps have contended that the above said complaint is not maintainable either on facts or according to law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

        Further the  O.Ps in their written version  mentioned citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court  reported in 2013(1) SC cases page No. 518 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “The finance company is legally authorized   to take physical  possession of the hypothecated vehicle in the event of breach of  hypothecation conditions”

On perusal of the  loan   statement of accounts filed by the O.Ps  it is revealed that   the complainant  has already  paid   total Rs.16,387/- in different dates  towards  E.M.Is (copies  payment  statement are  in the file  which  is marked as Annexure- 1 ).    Further it is revealed  that  the O.Ps had  claimed  delayed  payment  charges   and   cheque bounce charges  in their  statement of account  to be  paid  by the complainant to the O.Ps. In turn the  complainant  found  no other alternative  had approached this  commission   for  redressal of  their grievance.

For   better appreciation  this District  Commission  relied citations of the Apex Court.

It was held by the Apex court and reported   in CPJ 2004(1) page No. 1 where in the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed   “That remedy under C.P. Act.,  1986 is in addition to and not in derogation of other  remedies  available  and that  under remedies  are available  in this Act”.

Further it is held and reported in  CPJ- 2002(3) page No.8 in the case  of   Dr. J.J.Merchant and ors  Vrs  Shrinath Chaturvedi  where in the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  in para -12 of the above judgement   “In our view this submission also requires to be rejected  because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial,  exhaustive procedure  in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided.  Therefore, merely because  it is mentioned  that Commission or forum  is required to have summary trial  would hardly be a ground for directing  the consumer to approach the Civil Court.  For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed  procedure. Giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other  side, is not necessary.  It should be kept in mind  that legislature has   provided   alternative, remedy to the consumers  and that should  not be curtailed on such ground.  It would also be totally wrong    assumption that because summary trial is provided. Justice  can not be done when  same questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided.  The Act provides sufficient safeguards.  For   this purpose  we would refer the procedure prescribed  under the Act  for disposal   of the complaint

The  O.Ps have every right to earn profit from its customer, but it should  be reasonable or  acceptable one.  The O.Ps should not be a commercial  business centres for profiteering  from the exploitation of such type customer.

We deem it just and proper that out of the total E.M.I. consist of 12(twelve)  2(two) Nos. E.M.I.  a sum of Rs. 16,387/- the complainant  has already been   paid. Remaining  E.M.I. 10 Nos. @ Rs.  8,180/-  is to  be deposited in  the counter  of the  O.P  by the complainant.

Thus, in context of maintaining good relationship,  between bonafied  customer, this District Commission  feel  it is just and proper that the O.P.  should have received  the balance  E.M.I.  from the complainant.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps    to avoid the claim  which is Aliane Juris. Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.

 

O R D E R

            In resultant the complaint stands allowed in part against  O.Ps  on contest.

The  complainant is directed to deposit  only outstanding    E.M.I.  a sum of Rs.81,773/ -  without  charging  any  delayed payment charges  in the counter of the O.P   in 3(three)  monthly  equal  installments. Further the  O.Ps are directed to issue N.O.C. after receiving the outstanding E.M.Is from the  complainant towards  loan  agreement  No.  7190653  Mahindra Bolero  SLX2WD- BS2 bearing Regd. No. OR-10G-1000  in favour of the complainant.   Parties  are left to bear their own cost.

 

               Copies be served to the parties  free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me.  

 Pronounced in the open forum on               10th.      day of    December, 2021.

 

                                                 MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT