View 7801 Cases Against Transport
View 30275 Cases Against Finance
Smt. Rajeswari Sivvala filed a consumer case on 09 Apr 2021 against The Regional Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Chennai in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/98 and the judgment uploaded on 29 Jul 2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PO/DIST; RAYAGADA, STATE: ODISHA ,Pin No. 765001
C.C. Case No. 98 / 2015 Date. 9 . 04 . 2021.
P R E S E N T .
Sri GadadharaSahu, President.
Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Smt. Rajeswari Sivvala, W/O: Sri S.Appala Naidu, At:Kasturingar, Po/Dist: Rayagada, State: Odisha. …….Complainant
Vrs.
.…..Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada
For the O.Ps :- Sri K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate,Rayagada.
JUDGEMENT.
The crux of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps not to repossess the Truck bearing Regd. No. OR-18-C-6242 and to receive the E.M.I. amount as and when deposited by the complainant for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice, the O.Ps 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, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated as denial of the O.Ps. Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against them to meet the ends of justice.
Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the O.Ps and from the complainant. Perused the record, documents, written version filed by the parties.
This forum 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 loan for purchase of second hand Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-18-C-4654 for a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- vide hypothecation loan agreement No. PARVAO301040006 on Dt. 20.02.2013. The complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs.10,49,758/- which was also included the finance charges a sum of Rs.2,69,758/-, in 33 E.M.I. monthly installments for the period from 20.02.2013 to 20.10.2015 (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 is that without proper notice the O.Ps had threatened to seize the vehicle by using local Gundas in forcefully which is arbitrary, whimsical where as the last date of agreement will be expired on 20.10.2015.Hence C.C. case filed by the complainant.
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 O.Ps have also paid the insurance premiums. 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.
On perusal of the loan money receipt filed by the complainant it is revealed that the complainant has already paid total Rs.5,29,419/- in different dates from 20.2.2013 to 31.5.2015 towards E.M.Is (copies of the money receipts and payment statement are in the file which is marked as Annexure- 2 to 03). Further it is revealed that the O.Ps had claimed an amount of Rs.9,55,807/-in their statement of account as on 5.8.2015 as against the due to pay a sum of Rs.5,20,339/- by the complainant to the O.Ps (copies of the statement of account Dt. 5.8.2015 of the O.P is in the file which is marked as Annexure-4). In turn the complainant found no other alternative had approached this forum for redressal of their grievances on Dt. 07.08.2015.
The complainant in their complaint petition admitted that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,29,419/- as on Dt. 31.05.2015. The O.Ps have also entered in their accounts statement that the complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.5,29,419/-. For better appreciation this forum relied citation 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 orsVrsShrinathChaturvedi 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. a sum of Rs. 10,49,758/- the complainant has already been paid a consolidated E.M.I. amount sum of Rs.5,29,419/-. Remaining E.M.I. amount of Rs.5,20,339/- 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.Ps. should have receive the balance E.M.Is 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 outstanding E.M.Is. in the counter of the O.Ps on installment basis within 6 months. 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. PARVA0301040006 of second hand Ashok Leyland Truck bearing Regn. No.OR-18-C-4654 infavour of the complainant. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
The entire directions shall be carried out with in 6(six)months from the date of receipt of this order. Copies be served to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in the open District Commission on 9 th. . day of April, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.