Orissa

Rayagada

CC/68/2021

Sri Kabi Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sree Finance Co Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Jul 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./68/2021                                      Date.     10   .12.  2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri  Kabi  Nayak, S/O: Basudeb Naik,  Resident of  Gorakhapur, Badamaribha,           Dist: Rayagada, Pin No. 765015,  State:Odisha,  Cell No. 9348394252.                                             … Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, Sree Finance, Rayagada  Branch, Near Raghavendra   Institution, Rayagada(Odisha).

2.Sri N.Hari  Krishna, H.D.F.C. Bank, M.G.Road,Vijayawada, Near Benz CircleNo.40/1/129   Pin No.520008.  Cell No.7381066226.

3.Sri Prasant Jena, S/O: Jeevan Ballavha Jena, Resident of  Adarsh Nagar, Word No. 19,  P.R.Peta,  Jeypore, Dist:Koraput, Odisha- 764001.

…. Opposite parties.

For the complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1:- Sri A.K. Samal, Advocate, Cuttack.

For the O.P. No.2 & 3 :- Sri  A.K.Lenka, 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 charge   D.P.S  and other charges  towards  availed finance  for purchase of  JCB 3DX Backhoe loader  bearing Regd. No. 13-D-9853  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. The   brief  facts   of the case are summarized here under.

The  Complainant  has filed the petition  U/S- 35 of C.P. Act, 2019 along with  interim petition  U/S-  38(8)  of the C.P. Act, 2019.

The  District  commission on Dt. 23.3.2021  had passed interim order.

The O.P. No.1  aggrieved the above interim order Dt. 23.3.2021  had preferred Revision  bearing No. 53 /2021     before  the Hon’ble  State C.D.R.Commission, Cuttack.  The Hon’ble State CDR Commission, Cuttack  on Dt.30.6.2021  had passed order  and directed the District  Commission, Rayagada to expedite hearing  of the complaint case and  dispose of the same within  45 days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law.

The O.P No.1 (Sree finance)    put in their appearance and filed  written version  through their learned counsel  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.

The O.P. No. 2 & 3  on being noticed  had appeared  before the  District Commission    and handed over the JCB 3DX Backhoe loader  bearing Regd. No. 13-D-9853   to the complainant  on Dt.28.7.201  and  settled the matter out of court.  Now  the complainant  does  not want to proceed  the case against  the O.P. No. 2 & 3.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P   No.1 (Sree finance) 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 finance towards  purchase  of  JCB 3DX Backhoe loader  bearing Regd. No. 13-D-9853   vide agreement No. 134409   on Dt. 15.5.2017  an  advance amount a sum of Rs. 21,28,950/-   along with  interest  Rs.4,51,005/- total amount a sum of Rs.25,79,955/ to pay the loan amount in monthly  installments  consist  of 51  (Fifty one ) E.M.I.  Rs.58,550/-  starts from   15.5.2017  to 15.08.2021.   Undisputedly   the  complainant has  already  paid total amount a sum of Rs. 16,38,594/-   to the O.Ps for the above   vehicle (copies of the  loan documents and E.M.I list is  in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I).

The main grievance of the complainant  was that  due to unfair trade practice  by the  O.P. 2 & 3   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 No.1(Sree finance) has appeared and  filed  written version through their learned counsel  Sri Akhya Kumar Samal and associates. In the written version the O.P No.1  has made  preliminary objection, it was pleaded   that the  complainant  is not a consumer within the meaning  of  C.P. Act 2019 and this District Commission  has no jurisdiction  and not maintainable to try this case   and prayed    to dismiss the complaint petition  for the best  interest of natural justice.

                     Regarding not maintainable  of the present case before the District Commission the learned  counsel for the O.Ps. Sri A.K.Samal has  filed several  judgements  and documents  in support of  his case.  In turn the learned counsel for the  complainant  also filed several  judgements  and documents  in support of  their case  regarding maintainable  this  District Commission has a  jurisdiction  to entertain the case and this District  Commission has a power to try  the  present case.

The O.P No.1     appeared and filed their counter.  Arguments of the  O.P No.1. and from the complainant heard regarding maintainability of the present petition  and perused the record,  documents  written version, citations filed by the parties.

The learned counsels for the  O.P.  No.1  made arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.

The  complainant in its complaint mentioned that  due to unfair trade practice by the O.Ps  2 & 3  the complainant has not deposited the E.M.I. intime.

The  O.P No.1  in their written version contended  that the  case is not maintainable before the  District Commission as  there is a commercial transaction for profit and not for livelihood. In this connection  the O.Ps  relied citation reported in  CPR 2019 (2) page No. 498 the Hon’ble  National Commission where in observed Partnership firm can not take the stand of doing business only for the purpose of livelihood of the partners

The O.P No.1    taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 2019. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.    Hence the O.P No. 1    prays the District commission  to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

For better appreciation this District Commission relied citations which are mentioned here under:-

           It is held and reported  in C.P.R. – 2009 (1) page No. 164 the Honble  National Commission, New Delhi observed after amendment by the Consumer Protection  (Amendment) Act 2002 (62 of 2002)  Section 2(1)(d) 12 & 17 Consumer Person  excluded who availed services for commercial purpose was included  in definition only by  Amendment Act of 2002.

                  Again it is  held and  reported  in CPR- CPR- 1999(1) page  No.17  in the case  of Air Port Authority of India Vr. M/S. Solitaire India Ltd where in  the  Hon’ble National  Commission, New Delhi  observed In the case of hiring of service  for consideration if there any  deficiency the party in default can be  prosecuted by filing   consumer complaint  and question whether the services availed were for commercial purpose  or not was  of no consequence.   Hence the O.Ps can not take  the plea of  ouster clause and also can not take the plea of  Commercial purpose when the services were rendered for valuable consideration

                     Further it is held and reported  in AIR 1984  Odisha  182 in the case of M/S. Patnaik Industries (P) Ltd. Vrs.  Kalinga Iron works and others where in the  Honble   Supreme Court  observed  The agreement between the parties does not  oust the  jurisdiction of the Court.  It may operate as an estoppels against the parties    but it can not deprive the court  of its power to do justice.  Ordinarily  the  court  would have regard to  the choice of the parties, where however the court  whose jurisdiction has been  ousted is satisfied  that the stipulation would operate  harshly is oppressive  in  character inequitable or unfair for the ends of justice  it can relieve  the party  of the  bargain.  The ouster clause can be ignored.

Again In Skypark Couriers Ltd Vrs. Tata Chemicals Ltd  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  where in observed  Even if there exists an arbitration clause in an agreement and a complaint is made by the consumer in relation to a certain deficiency  of service  then the existence of an arbitration clause  will not be a bar to   the  entertainment of the complaint  by the Redressal  Agency constituted  under the Consumer protection Act  since  the remedy provided under the Act  is an addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.

Further  in Trnas Mediterranean Airways Vrs. Universal Exports  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  where in observed   The protection provided under the C.P. Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy.

Again  this District Commission  relied  citation It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

By virtue of Article-300 if a competent legislation  enacts a law for compensation  or damage  for  an act done by it  or its officers in discharge of their statutory  duties.  Thus  a suit for it  would be maintainable.  No civilized  system  can prorupt    on executives  to play  with people  of  its country  and claim that it is entitled to act  in any manner   as it  is sovereign needs  of the state, duty of  officials  and right  of the citizens are to be reconciled.  So that  the role of law   in a welfare state  is not shaken  (N.Nagendra Rao & Co.  Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 1994) 6 SCC-205 AIR 1994 SC  2663.     

The O.P No.1    in their written version contended that  this is a civil dispute and not consumer dispute and the complainant has to avail the opportunity of engaging an arbitration in the matter as per the clause. The complainant has taken the above  vehicle  for his business purpose.  According to them the complainant is having huge amount default .   The  O.P No.1   had  filed so many documents  in this District  Commission.

Since the O.Ps   are a financing company and it have  advanced finance to the complainant to achieve   his  object and the said service is provide by them   are for value is consideration and inclusion of arbitration  clause, jurisdiction etc  are incorporated only to trouble the consumer after wards.  So these  provisions even if available in the agreements which  were executed between the parties  the same can not defeat the very purpose for which the   money  is  advanced.  Consumerism is a  social movement seeking to augment the right  and powers of buyers and  in relation to sellers. Consumerism tries  to protect the  consumers against the abuse by the business companies.  It   is a mean to get rid of their   difficulties  while   dealing  with business.  The scheme is introduced and the entire  purpose behind setting up  consumer  court  was to provide  quick, easy and  affordable justice to common people  who could not otherwise  enforce their  right before a court of law and it is an additional remedy provided Under Section-100 of the C.P.Act, 2019.  Further more the jurisdiction  point and exclusion or inclusion of Arbitration clause  etc. is civil courts and not for the Consumer commission.  Hence the clause   regarding  jurisdiction and exclusion  argued by the  O.P No.1    are not applicable to the District Consumer Commission.   Since the disputes   is a  in relation of a  consumer disputes and as such  this  District Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain this  petition  and also dispose of the same.

It is clearly found that the   O.Ps have given the finance  to the complainant on payment of consideration and as such the complainant is a consumer with   in  the    definition of the  C.P. Act and the service  provided by the  OPs  are  also service  with in the  definition  of the C.P. Act.

The Securitization  and  Reconstruction of Financial  Assets and enforcement   of security interest Act,2002  Under Section- 13 of the above act  clearly  provides  the mode of recovery.  The  O.Ps  who are the financial  institution have advanced the money for a definite  purpose as seen  from the documents filed  by  parties  and admitted  by the O.Ps the complainant has made the  payments for 51  installments up to the   month   August 2021  and out of the  finance amount he has made payment   some   E.M.IS. by that  time.  The O.Ps  are guided by the  guide lines  of the  R.B.I and the  orders of the  Apex Court.

The  complainant  is a  young  32   years  old  educated  unemployed  youth  and he belongs S.C. & S.T.  category.  The complainant  is a cultivator  and the  contract work  is his side business in order to  keep the  above  financed   vehicle    into   action  and to earn some money   so that economically   he can  improve.  The  intention of the legislature  is also clear.  In  order to mobilize  and improve the  economic  condition  of S.C.& S.T. of the  remote   areas the scheme  is opened .

For the economic  development  the above vehicle   is highly  necessary  for the  complainant  who  resides   in a remote  area  where   as  the   last  E.M.I     date   completed  on  Dt. 15.08.2021. During the course of hearing the complainant   assured   before the  District  Commission   he   will deposit  the  defaulted   E.M.I     a  sum of   Rs.9,41,361.00   without charging  any  D.P.S. and other charges .

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  51(fifty one ) and finance amount  a sum of  Rs.25,79,955/-   an amount  of Rs. 16,38,594/- the complainant  has already been   paid. Remaining  E.M.I. a sum of Rs.9.41,361/-   is to  be deposited in  the counter  of the  O.P  by the complainant  without  charging  any  D.P.S and other charges.

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   without  charging  D.P.S, and other charges.

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.P No.1 (Sree finance)  on contest  and dismissed against  the O.P. 2 & 3.

The  complainant is directed to deposit  only outstanding    E.M.I.  a sum of Rs.9.41,361/-     without  charging  any  delayed payment charges  in the counter of the O.P    within  15 days from the date of  order.  Further the  O.P No.1  is  directed to issue N.O.C. after receiving the outstanding E.M.Is from the  complainant towards  loan  agreement  No.  134409     JCB 3DX Backhoe loader  bearing Regd. No. 13-D-9853 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              10 t^h.     day of    December, 2021.

 

                                                 MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT