DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:
C.C. NO.154/ 2019
Sachikanta Rout, aged about 30 years,
S/o – Late Judhistir Rout, . At – Galadari, PO- Erada,
Dist - Jagatsinghpur, Pin – 754109, at present
Plot No.984, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar – 751017,
Dist - Khurda
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- HDFC Bank Ltd., At- HDFC Bank House,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, (West) Mumbai – 400013.
Maharashtra, through its Managing Director.
- HDFC Bank Ltd.,
At- A-/62/1, Unit – 8, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar- 751012,
Dist – Khurda, through its Branch Manager..
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant Sri K.C.Prusty & Associates (Advocate)
For the O.Ps. Sri G. Mohanty & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 27/04/2019
DATE OF ORDER : 22/08/2023
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had availed a loan from the OPs in order to purchase a truck. The loan account number was 83023935. After availing the loan, he purchased the truck bearing registration number OD-33-T-2866. The complainant had to repay the entire loan in 47 EMIs @ Rs.74,100/-. After availing the loan, the complainant started repaying the installment amounts to the OPs but after a few months, due to financial difficulties, he could not repay the loan. All on a sudden, the OPs demanded Rs.5,17,900/- from the complainant. The OPs did not supply the correct statement of account to the complainant. Even they did not supply the copy of the loan agreement to the complainant. As alleged by the complainant, calculation of total outstanding against him was not correct. In spite of that, the OPs threatened to repossess the said vehicle. As it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs filed written version stating therein that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. There is neither deficiency in service nor is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. According to the OPs, the complainant is not a consumer.
He had availed a loan of Rs.27,77,000/- in order to purchase a truck. The complainant is a chronic defaulter as he did not pay the monthly installments regularly. There is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As there is no merit in the complaint petition, it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4 Perused the materials on record. Documents submitted by the complainant show that, he had availed loan from the OPs and the truck purchased by the complainant was hypothecated to HDFC Bank Ltd. The current statement of account submitted by the OPs shows that, as on 07/06/2023, there was an outstanding of Rs.31,50,171/- against the complainant. The allegation of non-supply of copy of agreement to the complainant is unfounded. Had it been so that , the complainant was not provided with copy of the agreement, he could have come to this Commission immediately after execution of the loan agreement. But he came to the Commission for relief only after default was committed by him and the OPs tried to repossess the hypothecated vehicle. Considering in totality the facts & circumstances of the case, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs nor is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. As such, 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 22nd August, 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
