DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                             -ooOoo-

C.C. CASE NO. 34/2021

Premananda Mohanty, aged about 49 years,

S/o –  Damodar Mohanty, At – Godisahi,

PO:  Kunjari, Dist – Khurda, Pin – 752061

….       Complainant

-Vrs.-              

1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

At -Sardar Patel Road, 6^th Floor,

West Wing, Guindy, Chennai – 600032, through

Its  Managing Director.

2. Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,

Creative Plaza, 3^rd Floor, Rasulgarh Square,

New Tarini Temple, PO- Rasulgarh, PS- Mancheswar,

Bhubaneswar – 751010, Dist – Khurda

3. A.R.T.O., Khurda, At/PO/PS/ Dist - Khurda

                                                                                                ….       Opp. Parties

For the complainant                :           Sri K.C.Prusty (Advocate)

For the O.Ps 1 & 2                  :           Sri D.Mohapatra  & Associates (Adv.)

For the OP.3                           :           Exparte

DATE OF FILING                :           25/01/2021

DATE OF ORDER                :           15/11/2023

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,  he  incurred a loan  of Rs.6,26,000/-from the OPs 1 & 2   in order to purchase a  Bolero  Camper Gold VX of Mahindra Make. The complainant  had to repay the loan amount  along with interest in 48 monthly installments @ Rs.17,051/-. As claimed by the complainant,  he  was repaying the installments  regularly. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant faced financial difficulties for which he approached the financier i.e. OPs 1 & 2 to allow some more time for payment of installments  by extending moratorium period. The OPs 1 & 2 Financier without considering  the difficulties of the complainant, forcibly repossessed the vehicle of the complainant on 4/1/2021. The complainant then approached the OP.2 to release the said vehicle but the OP.2 in turn, asked the complainant to pay the installment amount. As averred by the complainant, since the agreement period has not been expired, the OPs financier should not have repossessed the vehicle of the complainant. Such action on the part of the OPs 1 & 2 is arbitrary and illegal. Further, it is averred by the complainant that  he was not supplied with copy of loan agreement. Such conduct on the part of OPs 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint. 

3.         On the other hand, the OP.3 was set exparte and OPs 1 & 2 filed written version  contending therein that,  the complaint  is not maintainable. There is no cause of action  to file this complaint.  The OPs 1 & 2 admit that, a loan of Rs.6,26,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant who had to repay it in 47 EMIs. But he did not pay the installments in time.  As on  February, 2021, there was a total outstanding of Rs.5,93,019/- against the complainant. The complainant is a willful defaulter and as he did not pay the monthly installments in time, the OPs 1 & 2 repossessed the vehicle under the terms & conditions of the hypothecation agreement. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs 1 & 2 nor is there any unfair trade practice from their side.  The plea that the complainant  was not supplied with copy of the agreement is  baseless.  When the complainant committed default in repaying the loan, he knocked the door of this Commission  for certain relief. As the complaint is devoid of  any merit, it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4          Perused the materials on record.  There is no dispute about the fact that, the complainant incurred loan of Rs.6,26,000/- from the OPs 1 & 2. He had to repay it in 47 EMIs. The statement of account shows that,  as on 02/12/2021, there was an outstanding of Rs.7,82,576/- against the complainant. In the face of such huge outstanding against the complainant, the action on the part of OPs 1 & 2 to take possession of the vehicle in respect of which loan was sanctioned, was neither illegal nor arbitrary. Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice cannot be attributed to the OPs 1 & 2 under such situation. When the loanee commits default in repayment of the loan amount, the right accrues to the financier under the terms & conditions of the agreement to repossess the vehicle hypothecated to them.  So the OPs 1 & 2 have acted in accordance with the terms & conditions of the agreement. The plea that the complainant 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 he came to the Commission only after the default was committed on his part and the OPs 1 & 2  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 exparte against the OP.3 and dismissed on contest  against the OPs 1 & 2   being devoid of merit.

The order is pronounced on this day the  15^th  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