Orissa

Anugul

CC/15/2013

Pradeep Ku Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Head,C.I.T.I Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Md Azad

31 Mar 2018

ORDER

          OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL

 

       PRESENT:- SRI  DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.                          

                                       PRESIDENT

                                                             A N D

 

                                   Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,

                                      MEMBERS .

 

                              Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 2013

 

                                         Date  of  Filling : -08.02.2003.

                                                 Date  of  Order :-  31 .03.2018.

 

 Pradeep Ku.Das,S/O.Rabindra Ku.Das,

At/P.O.Talcher Town (Singh Sahi),P.S.

Talcher Sadar,Dist.Angul.

                                          _________________________Complainant.

                   Vrs.

 

01.Branch Head,C.I.T.I.Finance (India) Ltd.,

    C/O.Maheswari Mohanty,Co-Beuria House,

    Plot No.538.

 

02.Ground Floor,Saheed Nagar,B.B.S.R.,Dist.Khurda.

 

03.Administrative Officer/Chair Person,At-City

     Corp.Centre,Floor V.C- 61,Bandra Kurla Complex,

    G.Block,Bandra East,Mumbai- 400051.

 

•  

 

For the complainant    :-  Sri Md.Azad & associates(Advs.).

For the opp.parties     :-  Sri B.Panda & associates (Advs).

 

 

 

 

                                     : J U D G E M E N T   :

 

Sri D. C. Mishra, President.

          The  complainant  has  filed this  case with prayer to direct the opp.parties to release the  vehicle  bearing No.19F-0188 , after receiving  the arrear  loan  due, to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.00  towards loss, mental agony , damage and  harassment  and any other reliefs as deemed fit and  proper .

2.       The complainant’s  case runs thus:-

          That, he had  purchased 2515 LPT Truck No. OR-19F-0188 by taking  loan of Rs. 7,00,000.00  from  the  opp.parties which was to be repaid  along with  interest of Rs. 2,20,290.00 (total Rs. 9,20,290.00) in 35 equal installments of Rs. 26,294.00  each commencing  from 25.5.2011 to 25.3.2014. According  to   the  complainant he successfully  repaid  Rs. 3,60,834.00 only in 18 installments  but thereafter  due to  disturbance  in coal  and  Iron sector  sufficient  work could  not be arranged  for the  truck and  due  to want  of  income he  could  not repay ¾  installments. The  complainant  has  specifically averred that  though  on  his  request  opp.party No.1 assured  and  promised to accommodate him but on 19.12.2012 they forcibly took away the truck  from the  possession of the  complainant. So the  complainant had filed this  case along with  Misc Case No. 6 of 2013  with  prayer for  release of the  seized truck. In the  said Misc Case this  forum directed  the opp.parties to release the truck in favour  of the  complainant  on receiving   a  sum of Rs. 1,25,000.00  only. It  is alleged that, though the  complainant  approached  the opp.parties to  deposit the  cash of Rs.1,25,000.00 but  the opp.parties  deferred the matter on the  plea of Appeal  against  the order. Then  the opp.parties  preferred  R.P.No.20 of  2013 before the Hon’ble  State Commission against  the   order dtd. 8.2.2013  passed   by the District Forum in Misc Case No. 6 of 2013 but subsequently before  disposal of the revision petition filed by the opp.parties, they sold the truck.

3.       The opp.parties  have  contested the  case  by  filing  written version  with  prayer to reject the  case  on the  grounds  that  the  prayer  of the  petitioner is  false, fabricated  and  baseless and  he has  no cause of  action to file the case.

4.       In view of the  rival pleadings  of the  parties  the  following  issues arise  for  consideration :-

Issues:-

1. Whether  there is  consumer  and service provider relationship between the  complainant  and  the opp.parties  and  whether  the  complainant has  any cause  of action to  file the  case and the case is maintainable ?
2. To what  reliefs the  complainant is entitled to ?

: F I N D I N G S :

Issue No.(i):-  Since the opp.parties  had  given  loan and received  installments  from the  complainant, undoubtedly the  opp.parties are service  providers  and the  complainant  is the  consumer. Thus, the required relationship exists between them. The case is maintainable before this forum.

•  

Issue No.(ii):-According to  the  complaint  petition the  complainant has repaid  about Rs. 3,60,834.00 only  in 18 installments  which was  more than  half of the  loan  amount. The  loan installment  was continuing  upto March, 2014.In  between  that 15 months  the  complainant  could have repaid the rest  loan  amount  but  due to sale of the   vehicle  he  lost  his  bread and  butter  and  suffered  a lot.

•  

Further the opp.parties have notfiledany documentary evidenceif theyhad obtained any valuation certificateof thetruckfrom theauthorizedauthoritiesor not. Also theopp.parties have notfiledany cogent evidence orwritten documents to justify thatthey hadintimated thecomplainantto takepartin theauction sale. Thus itcannot be presumed that theauction saleof the truck wasconducted in right manner.

From thefore goingdiscussionthisforum isdriven to irresistibleconclusionthatwithoutfollowingthe dueprocedure of law or natural justice, the opp.partieshavewhimsicallysold thetruck even duringpendency oftheprohibition order of theDistrict Forum. Theopp.partiessubmitted thatin case ofviolation of theloan agreement they are at liberty to takeback thefinanced vehicle. Eventhoughasper loan agreement they can repossesses the truck but duringpendency of prohibitory order passed by District Forumnotto salethevehicle, sellingthe vehicle is illegal andnotintimating thecomplainant toparticipate in theauction saleisdefinitely gross deficit in rendering service and harassment to thecomplainant. They cannotsale thevehiclewhimsicallyin lesser price. The learnedcounselfor the complainantsubmittedthat thevalue of thetruck wasmuchmorethan theamountin whichit has been soldand heisentitled togetcompensation, litigation chargesas well asfree from theloanliability.

 

5. Hencetheorder:-

 

 

 

: O R D E R :

•  

The opp.partiescannotdemandanythingmorefrom thecomplainanttowardstheirloan agreementand thecomplainant isfullyfree from repayingtheloan. The opp.partiesarefurtherdirected to pay Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards litigation charges to thecomplainant within 45 daysofgetting this order. In case ofanydeviation of this order, thelitigationcharges of Rs. 10,000.00(Rupees Ten Thousand) allowedby thisforum willcarry 10% quarterlycompoundableinterestfrom to day tilltheactual payment ismade.

                                                       Order delivered in the open forum                                                            today the  31^st March,2018 with                                                            hand   and seal of this Forum.

Typed to my dictation

and corrected by me                                                Sd/-

                                                                               (Sri D. C. Mishra)        

  Sd/-                                                                                  President.                                                                                                        

  (Sri D. C. Mishra)                                                                

         President.

 

  Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

 (Sri K.K.Mohanty),                                                (Smt.S.Mallick),

1.