Orissa

Cuttak

CC/92/2018

Umasankar Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N K Dash

21 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                 C.C.No.92/2018

                        Umasankar Panda,

S/O:Sitanath Panda,

At:Sarapada,P.O:Bodhanga,

P.S:Nischintakoili,Dist:Cuttack.                                       ...   Complainant.

 

                                    Vrs.

1.       The Manager,Indusind Bank,

Finance Division, Old No.115, 116,New No.34 G.N.Chetty Road,

                  T.Nagar,Chennai-600017

Sector-11,C.B.D,Belarpur,Navi Mumbai-400614..

 

2.       The Manager,Indusind Bank,

Finance Division,Chandikhole Branch,

At/Po-Chandikhole,Dist-Jajpur

 

3.      The Manager,Indusind Bank,

Finance Division,AT:Bajrakabati Road,

Cuttack.   

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    21.08.2018

Date of Order:  21.04.2022

 

For the complainants:   Mr.  N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1,2 & 3:  Mr. P.K.Ray,Adv. & Associates.                    

.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President

 

            The case record is put up today for orders.

            The case of the complainant pas made out from his complaint petition in short is that the employee of O.P No.3 had approached him for providing finance and accordingly the complainant had purchased TATA LPT 3118 TC52BS3 COWL Regd. Under RTO,Chandikhole with Regd. No.OD-04-K-3699 and Chassis No,.MAT466395G1P26729,Engine No.B591803261M63561175 and had executed a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement to that effect with O.P.1 at the branch of O.P No.2. A loan amount of Rs.24,00,000/-  was sanctioned by O.P No.1 which was financed on 29.12.16 and was to be repaid in 55 E.M.Is @ Rs.58,140/-.  According to the complainant, he was regularly paying the instalments till 2018.    On 10.8.18, the complainant had submitted an application before O.P No.2 for settlement of the dispute but it was not given any effect by the O.P No.2.  On 7.8.18 while the said purchased vehicle of the complainant was plying at the N.H-5 near Jagatpur square, the said vehicle was detained by five persons and after taking a sum of Rs.2000/- those five persons who had detained the said vehicle went away.  The complainant has further mentioned in his complaint petition that due to the enhancement of the amount in the loan account, he got severe mental shock and alleges that unfair trade practice adopted by O.P No.1.  As such the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- from the O.Ps.

2.         All the three O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version conjointly.  According to the written version of O.Ps, this complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as they relied upon the decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. In Civil Appeal No.1560 of 2004 reported in 2010(1) CPC 379. They have also disputed that the complainant is not a consumer having no valid license to drive the commercial vehicle and to substantiate their pleading they have relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vrs. P.S.G Industrial Institute (AIR 1995 SC 1428).  They have also alleged that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition for which they relied on a decision of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Odisha in the case of  Bhabani Sankar Acharya & Another Vs. M/s. Gold Mohur Foods and Feeds Ltd and others reported in 2007 OLR(CSR) 38 and in another case C.C 43 of 2010 in the case of Sushant Kumar Acharya Vs. M/s. Magma Finance Corporation Ltd decided on 19.5.2010.  According to the O.Ps, when the complainant is a defaulter in payment of instalments, he has failed to discharge his contractual obligation.  The O.Ps have also averred about the arbitration proceeding wherein the complainant is at liberty to participate.  According to the O.Ps on 20.11.18 the complainant was a defaulter of 5 instalments amounting to Rs.2,61,237.25 and together with future dues outstanding amount as on 20.11.18 is Rs.22,97,997.25.  The O.Ps denied about their concern about payment of Rs.2000/- as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint petition.  According to the O.Ps, this case is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

3.         Keeping the averments from the either sides in mind, this Commission feels it proper to adjudicate the following issues;

            i.          Whether the complaint case as filed by the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the complaint case as filed?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by him.

Issue no.1 & 2:

For the sake of convenience, issues No.1 & 2 are taken up together.  It is admitted fact that the complainant had taken a loan for purchasing a commercial vehicle and there is no evidence laid by the complainant that if he was plying the said commercial vehicle to earn his daily livelihood.  The complainant admits that he fell ill for which he became defaulter in the year 2018 for two instalments but to the contrary, it is the O.Ps who have averred that the complainant was defaulter of 5 instalments which according to them was wilful.  The complainant has not filed any certificate to prove his illness as per the plea taken by him.  So being a wilful defaulter, the complainant in order to escape the liability of repaying the loan amount has filed this complaint petition as it seems.  As such this complaint case appears not to be maintainable.  Accordingly these two issues are answered.

Issue No.3:

When it is already settled that the complainant was a wilful defaulter, it can be concluded that the complainant is not at all entitled to any compensation as claimed by him.  Accordingly this issue is answered in the negative.

                                                ORDER

This case is dismissed on contest and as regards the facts and circumstances without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 21^st day of April,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                    President

.                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.