Orissa

Cuttak

CC/68/2018

Arjun Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager,HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S Satapathy & associates

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.68/2018

Arjun Sahoo,

S/O:Abhimanyu Sahoo,

At:Budhapada,P.O:Anakhia,

P.S:Biridi,Dist:Jagatsinghpur.                                           ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        The Regional Manager,HDFC Bank,

108(D),Master Canteen,1^st Floor,

Opp. Lalchand Jewellers,Bhubaneswar,

Khurda.

 

2.        The Branch Manager,HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Bajrakabati Road,P.S:Mangalabag,Cuttack.

 

3.        The Proprietor/s. Vikranta Engineers,

A-38, Industrial Estate,

At:Khapuria,P.O/P.S:Madhupatna,Cuttack           ....Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    19.06.2018

Date of Order:  10.08.2022

 

For the complainant        :    Mr. S.Satpathy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps No.1 & 2      :   Mr. Rajit Roy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.3               :    Mr.B.A.Prusty,Advocate.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                 

            Case of the complainant as made out on the complaint petition in short is that he is a farmer and as per the scheme of the Government, he had availed a tractor with 50% subsidy limited to Rs.90,000/- by exchanging the old tractor of his father and by obtaining a loan he had entered into loan-cum-hypothecation agreement bearing No.81730805 dt.14.9.15.  The quoted price of the Mahindra 575 D1(Bhomiputra) 45HP, 4 Cylinder model tractor  was of Rs.7,06,415/- as on dt.3.9.15.  The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as told to him by the O.P No.2.  Thus he had obtained a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- only and the monthly instalment due from him was of Rs.15,704/-.  Due to illness he was unable to pay the loan instalments for which he had approached the O.P No.2 for rescheduling the outstanding dues but O.P No.2 had denied to the said proposal of him and rather had threatened to prosecute the complainant by using the security cheques as furnished by him.  Thus, the complainant had to approach this Commission by filing this case wherein the complainant seeks direction to the O.Ps for getting the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- and to reschedule the loan account as due without taking any coercive action against him.

            The complainant has filed xerox copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps in this case, O.Ps No.1 & 2 have jointly filed their written version whereas O.P No.3 has separately filed his written version.  However, all the O.Ps have contested this case.  According to the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, the complainant was financed an amount of Rs.5,29,871/- while purchasing the Mahindra 575 D1(Bhomiputra) 45HP tractor and the EMIs fixed was @ Rs.15,704/- for 48 months with effect from 4.12.16 to 4.12.19.  O.Ps No.1 & 2 in their written version have stated that they as bank have no role to play in the subsidy matter of the complainant.  They rather allege that the case of the complainant is an afterthought which is filed after initiation of the Arbitration case on 12.3.17 and also after the award being passed on 24.6.17 in the said case.  Thus, they have prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

            In order to substantiate their case O.Ps No.1 & 2 have filed copies of accounts statement of the complainant, award of the Arbitrator, Bibhuti Bhusan Misha in Arbitration Proceeding no.281 of 2017.

            O.P No.3, who has filed his separate written version, has stated therein that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, O.P No.3 is not liable for the non-payment of subsidy of the complainant.  Of course O.P No.3 admits about the purchase of the tractor by the complainant but he being a mere dealer is in no way connected to this case.  Thus he has prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary cost.

3.         From the contents of the two written versions as filed as well as from the averments of the complaint petition, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

            i.          Whether the complainant has a cause of action to file this case?

            ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            iii.        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

Issues No.1,2 & 3.

            Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a tractor in exchange of the old tractor of his father and by getting finance from the O.Ps.  He was lured to get the subsidy of Rs.90,000/- maximum for enabling him to repay the financed amount with interest thereon.  It is also a fact that since when he became a defaulter by not paying the EMIs regularly, he was threatened to be prosecuted U/S-138 of NI Act.  But the complainant has not whispered a word as regards to the initiation of the Arbitration proceeding and about the award therein.  When there is arbitration award already given in between the parties to this case for the same cause of dispute, this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same issue in between the same parties.  Thus, it cannot be said here that the case of the complainant is maintainable, that the complainant had cause of action to file this case and that the O.Ps were deficient in their service.  Accordingly, all these three pertinent issues are answered against the complainant.

Issue No.4.

            From the above discussions, it is concluded here that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to facts and circumstances of the case without cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                                                

                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                Member