Orissa

Cuttak

CC/46/2020

Sahadev Roul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vikrant Engineers - Opp.Party(s)

S K Behera

12 Sep 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.46/2020

Sahadev Roul,

S/O:Sri Joginath Roul,

At:Somapada,(Majhi Sahi),P.O:Badabhuin,

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

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        VIKRANT ENGINEERS

Through its Manager,

At:A/38,Industrial Estate,

P.O: Industrial Estate,

Dist/City:Cuttack,Pin-753010,Odisha.

 

2.        Cholamandalam Investment

And Finance Company represented

Through its Manager,

At:Link Road(near Aklash Institute),

P.O:ADMarket(SO),Dist:Cuttack.

 

3.        Cholamandalam Investment

And Finance Company represented

Through its Manager,

AT:No45 justice Basheer Ahmed sayeed

Building IInd Floor,2^nd Line Beach,

Moore Street,P.O:Parrys,

City-Chennai,Pin-600001,Tamilnadu.                                            ... Opp. Parties.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    16.06.2020

Date of Order:   12.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. S.K.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1:                 None

For the O.Ps   1 & 2  :          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                

            Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that in order to earn his livelihood he intended to purchase a tractor for which he had contacted O.P No.1 as well as O.Ps no.2 & 3.  O.Ps no.2 & 3 agreed to finance the complainant for purchasing his tractor and a sum of Rs.7,68,295/- was financed by them including the finance charges of Rs.2,48,295/- which was to be repaid in 55 number of monthly instalments as well as other penal dues as per the agreement.  .  The monthly instalment was fixed to be of Rs.13,970/-.  The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,30,000/- to O.P No.1 on different dates  The complainant could not utilise the tractor after purchasing it since because it could not be registered.  He had engaged a driver to drive the said tractor.  Inspite of the complainant paying 12 number of instalments, the O.Ps no.2 & 3 had forcibly taken the possession of the tractor in an illegal manner from the complainant without listening his grievances.  They had seized the said tractor of the complainant on 19.3.20 in presence of the police since because the complainant had not paid the instalment as due from him within the due time.  The complainant could know that the vehicle was seized from his possession by virtue of an Arbitration Proceeding bearing no.CTM693/2017SRR/C.M.PNO.L 1258 .  When the complainant approached the O.Ps no.1,2 & 3, they demanded full payment of the financed amount in order to release the tractor for which he had to file this case claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- seeking direction for registration of the tractor in his favour and to release it in his favour.  He has also claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.20,000/- as regards to the litigation expenses, further, with any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed copies of documents as regards to the purchase and finance of the tractor in his favour.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P No.1 having not contested this case has been set exparte whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have contested this case and have jointly filed their written version.  According to the written version of the contesting O.Ps, the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed with cost.  They admit about the finance as provided by them enabling the complainant to purchase a tractor and that subsequently, the complainant had breached the agreement by becoming a defaulter and by not paying the E.M.Is for which on 19.3.20, as per procedure the O.Ps had repossessed the vehicle since because the complainant had defaulted by then a sum of Rs.11,147/- with other over dues to the tune of Rs.34,490/-. They had issued notices to the complainant to clear the dues but the complainant had not turned up.  According to them, there was no deficiency in their service and rather the complainant has no loco-standi to file this case which is liable to be rejected.  They also have stated about the arbitration award which have already been passed in this case for which the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is rather liable to be dismissed with cost.

            O.Ps no.2 & 3 have also filed copies of documents showing the finance as made by them enabling the complainant to purchase a tractor, the agreement copy as entered upon by the complainant with them alongwith terms and conditions thereon and also the account statement showing outstanding amount and the postal receipts in order to prove their case.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition as well as contents in the written version of the contesting O.Ps, 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 case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

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

 

Issue no.ii.

            Issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            It is not in dispute that the complainant in order to purchase a tractor had taken finance from the O.Ps no.2 & 3 and had agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement thereto for repaying the loan amount in instalment basis.  The complainant admits to have become defaulter for which the vehicle was seized from his possession in presence of the police.  According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the O.Ps can repossess the vehicle financed by them when the complainant became a defaulter thereby floating the terms and conditions of the agreement, the O.Ps were forced to take repossession of the said vehicle after observing all the legal formalities.  Thus, it cannot be said here in this case that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps who had taken repossession of the tractor in question from the complainant.  Accordingly this issue goes sin favour of the O.Ps.

Issues no.i & iii.

            The complainant had filed this case when his tractor was repossessed by the O.Ps who are his financiers.  He admits to have become a defaulter.  There was one arbitration proceeding as it appears from the averments as available in the case record.  Thus, the case of the complainant can never be said to be maintainable and that the complainant is entitled to reliefs as claimed.  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 12^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                     Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                               Member