Orissa

Cuttak

CC/188/2021

Smt Pramila Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorised Officer,IDFC First Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P R Behera & associates

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

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

                                                                C.C.No.188/2021

Smt. Pramila Behera,

W/O:Late Kedar Behera,

At:Thatari Sahi,Chauliagaj,

Nayabazar,Near Girls High School,

Cuttack Sadar,P.O:Nayabazar,Dist:Cuttack.                                                    ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        IDFC First Bank Ltd. represented through its

Authorized Officer,At:1^st Floor,Modi Bhawan,

178A,Saheed Nagar,Backside of Central Mall,

Bhubaneswar-751007.

 

2.         IDFC First Bank Ltd. represented through its

Branch Manager,At:Ground Floor,Ratna Mandap,

Link Road,Near Arunodaya Market,Dist:Cuttack-753012.

 

3.         IDFC First Bank Ltd. represented through its

Chief Manager Officer,At:KMR Tower,

7^th Floor NO.1,HNarrinton Road,Chetpet,

Chennai,State:Tamil Nadu-600031.                                                                      ...Opp. Parties.

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    08.11.2021

Date of Order:  24.08.2022

 

For the complainant:            Mr. P.R.Behera,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps :                           Mr. D.P.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                                             

            Case of the complainant in short is that her husband namely Kedar Behera had availed two wheeler vehicle loan vide loan account no.13914023 from the O.Ps in the year 2017.  The Registration number of the said vehicle is OD-05AE-5572.  Her husband died on 14.2.21 due to ill health leaving behind the complainant and one minor son.  It is averred by the complainant that her husband had availed loan from Capital First Ltd.(now IDFC First Bank Ltd) and after change of the name of bank, it was not intimated to the husband of the complainant.  After death of her husband, the complainant  intimated  such fact to the O.P No.1.  But it is alleged by the complainant that the O.Ps are a not providing the account statement to her.  It is also averred by the complainant that as per the law after death of her husband, the ownership of the vehicle should have been transferred in her name.  But the O.Ps have not changed the ownership of the vehicle inspite of her request.   It is further stated that the O.Ps also are not supplying copy of the agreement-cum-hypothecation and other related documents relating to the said loan.  It is further stated by the complainant that her husband was paying E.M.Is regularly without any fault but due to pandemic situation of Covid-19, he had defaulted in payment of some E.MIs.   Thereafter, due to illness she could not pay the E.M.Is.  It is the further case of the complainant that she had  approached the O.Ps for OTS (One Time Settlement) of the loan dues but the O.Ps had not listened to her such request and had not taken any effective step in that regard. 
On 10.8.21, the O.Ps had seized the said vehicle.  The complainant earlier had made several representations to the O.P No.2 not to seize the vehicle and to give opportunity for settlement of the outstanding dues by way of OTS scheme as per the guidelines of the R.B.I but the O.Ps had not responded to the request of the complainant.  On 22.10.21 the O.Ps had issued the Pre-Sale notice.  In the said Pre-Sale notice, the O.Ps had demanded Rs.37,336.73p from the husband of the complainant.  The complainant had  approached the O.Ps and again had represented them mentioning therein  that her husband is no more and her financial condition is not that sound.  She had requested that vehicle may be released in her favour but the O.Ps had not cooperated.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for issuance of directions to the O.Ps to set aside the Pre-Sale notice dt.22.1.21, settle the outstanding dues by O.T.S scheme and release the vehicle in her favour, so also has prayed for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards her litigation expenses.

            The complainant has filed some documents in order to prove her case.

2.         The O.Ps have conjointly filed their written version.  They have stated that as per the agreement the matter should have been referred to the Arbitration and thus this Commission lacks jurisdiction.  They have also submitted that they were not deficient in their service and the complainant is not a consumer and has not availed any service from them.   It is stated that as the loanee, the husband of the complainant was a defaulter; they had seized the vehicle as per the agreement.  It is further averred that the husband of the complainant had availed loan of Rs.46,138/- and had purchased a Honda Activa 4G,vehicle bearing  Regd.No.OD-05-AE-5572.  The borrower had executed the Loan Agreement to that effect on 12.12.17.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the complainant had not informed them regarding the death of the loanee.  The O.Ps only came to know about the death of the loanee when the vehicle was repossessed.  They have disputed about the complainant to have approached them for settlement of the loan dues.  It is also disputed by the O.Ps that the husband of the complainant was paying the monthly E.M.Is regularly.  It is further averred that after death of the loanee, the complainant never approached for One Time Settlement of the outstanding dues.  The O.Ps waited reasonable period and thereafter had taken possession of the vehicle.  The vehicle was seized on 10.8.21.  It is admitted by the O.Ps that after seizure of the vehicle, the complainant had given representation to them.  The O.Ps had issued Pre-Sale notice on 22.10.21.  As the borrower defaulted in payment of the loan dues, they had taken possession of the vehicle.  After issuing the Pre-Sale notice, the O.Ps on 30.10.21 had sold the vehicle which is much prior to receipt of the interim order dt.10.11.21 as passed by this Commission directing them not to take any coercive action.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version, this Commission is of a view to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

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

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

Issues no.i & ii.

            Admittedly, the husband of the complainant had purchased the two wheeler by availing loan from the O.Ps and have agreed to repay the loan alongwith interest as per the agreement.  However, her husband had died on 14.2.21.   The complainant could not produce any guideline of the R.B.I for OTS as alleged by her.  It is the discretion of the bank whether to extend the OTS scheme to the loanee or not.  The O.Ps were ignorant about the death of the loanee.  However, the O.Ps had seized the vehicle and had sold the same as per the agreement as because the borrower was a defaulter.  Hence there is no deficiency in service noticed on the part of the O.Ps and the case is thus not maintainable.

Issue No.iii.

            From the above discussions, it is concluded here the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of August,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                      

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                       Member.

                                                                       

                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                             President