Deficiency in financing service is the grievance of the petitioner.
The facts as stated by the petitioner in the complaint petition shortly is that the petitioner being an mufsil lady in order to maintain her livelihood by way of transport business availed a loan of Rs.2,65,000/- from the O.P for purchasing a Indica Delux Car . As per term and conditions of the agreement which was executed by the petitioner with the O.Ps. for the above cited loan the petitioner is required to repay the loan amount along with Rs.45,000/- as Insurance coverage and interest Rs.1,06,329/- in 48 monthly installments which has been started from 30.04.2009 having 1st installment Rs.9149/- and subsequent installments @ Rs.8680/- in each month. Accordingly after availing the loan the petitioner has paid Rs.2,86,830/- in total in between 30.04.2009 to 25.11.2011. It is also stated by the petitioner that as against the above cited payments the O.Ps. illegally has presented the cheque for encashment those were taken from the petitioner at the time of availing the loan.
Similarly the O.Ps. also not taken in to account an amount of Rs.10,700/-. Which was paid by the petitioner on 21.07.2009 as well as charging Rs.450/- in all occasion as collection charges which is also illegal. As regards payment of interest , it is stated by the petitioner that the O.Ps. are charging 36% per annum as interest which violates the guide line of Hon’ble Supreme court reported in 2001-AIR-3095 (SC) and Odisha High Court in WP (c) No.17720/2008 . Having the above arbitrary illegal action the O.Ps. on 29.12.2011 without giving prior notice seized the above cited vehicle at Tangi at the time the vehicle was carrying passengers. After much difficulties the petitioner arranged another vehicle for their journey. After seizure ,though the petitioner had been to the office of O.P. no.2 for settlement of the matter and the O.P no.2 assured to settle the grievance but without settling the grievance subsequently served a notice to the petitioner wherein the O.P no.2 threatened to sell the vehicle on auction. Accordingly the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the O.Ps. to re-calculate the outstanding amount charging interest @ 9% per annum instead of 36% and after repayment of the recalculated amount from the side of the petitioner the O.Ps, may be directed to issue N.O.C. against the financed vehicle . Further award compensation as per scheduled.
After appearance the O.Ps. have filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner. As per written version of O.Ps. have taken the following pleas as stated below.
It is admitted facts that the petitioner is using the alleged vehicle bearing No.0R-04-J-4118 for business purpose ,hence it can not be said that the said vehicle is for earning livelihood . Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed since it is for commercial purpose.
The petitioner is a chronic defaulter who is paying the installment at belated time which violates the term and condition of the loan –cum-hypothecation agreement..
The cheques which are deposited by the petitioner towards repayment of loan regularly dis-honoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,8637/- towards document charges, legal expenses retainer charges, re-possession charges besides bank charges of Rs.8400/- for dis-honoured of cheques as per term and condition of agreement in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1996) 4-SCC-704-SC.
It is also stated by the O.Ps. that owing to defaulted situation from the side of the petitioner, the O.Ps. in exercising the power vide clause 18(a) of the agreement
though seized the above cited vehicle but subsequently has released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner as per interim order of the Hon’ble Forum.
As regards the allegation regarding forceful repossession , it is stated by O.Ps. that in absence of any evidence regarding forceful repossession of the financed vehicle it is also not acceptable in view of the observation Appellant Forum reported in (2009) 1 –CPJ-502.
Like wise as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme court and National Commission reported in 2006(2)-SCC-598-SC , 1995(111) CPJ-58-NC, the O.Ps. are authorized to repossess the financed vehicle in case of default towards repayment of loan. Accordingly in case of default if the vehicle is repossessed and the Hon’ble Forum direct to return the confiscated vehicle amounts to revising / interfering with term of agreement as per observation of Appellant Forum reported in 2006(111)CPJ-261.
In the conclusion it is stated by the O.Ps. that he loan –cum-hypothecation agreement will expire on 11.02.2013 and at present the petitioner is required to repay Rs.57,878.42/- in total. Accordingly the petitioner may be directed to clear up the loan amount at an early date, failing which the O.Ps. shall be constrained to repossess the vehicle again though it has been released in favour of the petitioner.
In view of the above narrated clarification the dispute may be dismissed having no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
After perusal of the record along with documents in detail we are inclined to observed as follows.
Admittedly the main grievance of the petitioner is regarding charging of interest by the O.Ps. @ of 36% instead of 9% per annum. In this context the petitioner has relied on the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001-AIR-3095-SC and Odisha High Court vide WP (C) No.17720 /2008.
In view of the above authority of Appex Court and Odisha High Court we are unanimously in the opinion that charging of 36% interest instead of 9% per annum is not justified.
As regards repossession of the above financed vehicle we have come across with the observation of Hon’ble National Commissionreportedin 2014 (3) CLT-504(NC) (Rajeev Bhatia Vrs. Indulus Bank Ltd ) wherein the Hon’ble Commission referring the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 111(2012)-CPJ-4-SC vide para-8 has observed that :-
“ under the hire purchase agreement, the financer is the real owner of the vehicle, therefore ,there can not be any allegation against him for having the repossession of the vehicle “.
Owing to the above factual aspects in order to meet the ends of justice we are inclined to dispose of the dispute without awarding any compensation of cost.
O R D E R
In the result the dispute is disposed of . The O.Ps. are directed to recalculate the outstanding defaulted installments charging 9% interest instead of 36% per annum and after re-calculation the statement of outstanding amount shall be served to the petitioner by R.P within one moth after receipt of this order. The petitioner is also directed to repay the revised outstanding dues within one month (30 days ) after receipt of the outstanding statement from the O.Ps.. Further the O.Ps. also directed to issue N.O.C in respect of the alleged vehicle within 15 days after receipt of the outstanding dues.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of October ,2014. under my hand and seal of the Forum
