DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BHUBANESWAR:
C.C. CASE NO.289/ 2021
Pravati Rout, aged about 55 years,
W/o – Hemanta Kumar Rout. , At – Alasudha, PO – Piteipur,
PS/ Dist – Jagatsinghpur - 754106
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- Indusind Bank Ltd., At – No.34, G.N.Chetty Road,
T Nagar, Chennai – 600017, through its Managing Director.
- Regional Manager,
Indusind Bank Ltd.,(Consumer Finance Division),
1st floor, Manorama Chambers, Cuttack – Puri Road,
Rasulgarh, PO/PS – Mancheswar,
Bhubaneswar, Dist - Khurda – 751010.
- Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd.,
(Consumer Finance Division), At – Umanga Plaza,
1320, Bajrakabatiroad, Samanta Sahi, Ranihat Colony,
Cuttack – 753001.
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Sri K.C.Prusty (Advocate)
For the O.Ps. : Sri A.B.Majhi & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 09/12/2021
DATE OF ORDER : 24/11/2023
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, she incurred a loan of Rs.29,70,000/- from the OPs in order to purchase a vehicle namely Ashok Leyland 3718 Truck. She had to repay the loan amount along with interest @ 74,000/- per month. As averred by the complainant, she was regularly paying the installment amounts to the OPs. But when she felt that the OPs are bent upon to repossess the vehicle of the complainant, she asked them for supply of statement of account, upon which the OPs issued statement of account. The statement of account reveals that, the repayment period has been extended and the interest charges was increased from 9,80,100/- to Rs.11,27,101.84/-. According to the complainant, the statement of account provided by the OPs, was not correct. Besides, she was not supplied with copy of loan agreement. As she is the registered owner of the vehicle, the OPs have no right to repossess the vehicle. The action on the part of the OPs, is not only arbitrary but also illegal. They have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs did not file written version but participated in the hearing by submitting the statement of account.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant had incurred loan of Rs.29,70,000/- from the OPs. After purchase of the vehicle for which loan was sanctioned, she got it registered in her name. The statement of account reveals that, as on 06/11/2023, there is an outstanding of Rs.19,78,483.84/- against the complainant. In the face of such huge outstanding against the complainant, the financier has got the right under the terms & conditions of the hypothecation agreement to repossess the vehicle. Such repossession is neither arbitrary nor illegal. It neither amounts to deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice. The complainant had incurred the loan and she was under obligation to repay it. She committed default in repaying the loan amount. The plea of the complainant that she was not supplied with copy of the loan agreement, is not well founded. Had it been so, the complainant could have come to this Commission immediately after execution of the loan agreement. But she came to the Commission only after the default was committed on her part and the OPs tried to exercise their right under the hypothecation agreement. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case in entirety, this Commission finds that the complaint bears no merit. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed on contest against the OPs being devoid of merit.
The order is pronounced on this day the 24th November, 2023 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
