Orissa

Jajapur

CC/19/2018

Benudhar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amar Kumar Routray

31 Aug 2018

ORDER

                             IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                          

                                                   Dated the 31st day of  August,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 19 of 2018

Benudhar Sahoo   S/O Madhusudan Sahoo  

Vill /P.O. Kalan   , P.S.Kuakhia  ,

Dist.Jajpur    .                                                                                                                   

                                                                                 ………..complainant.                                                                      

                                                     Versus

Branch Manager, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD,

At/ P.O./P.S.Jajpur Road,  Near Brahmani Hotel By pass ,Dist.Jajpur.

Represented through its (Manager)                     …………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                     .                                                            

For the Complainant:                             Sri Amar Routray, Advocate.

For the Opp.Party    :                               Sri Prasanta Samanta, Chinmayee Jena,Advocates                                                                                  

                                                                                                      Date of order:  31. 08. 2018.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER  .

 Deficiency in financial service is the grievance of the petitioner.

                The facts  relevant  as per complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner   is an inhabitant of village . Kalan ,P.S. Kuakhia within the dist. of Jajpur and  by profession is an unemployed youth . For the purpose of self employment  to maintain his livelihood  purchased a Ashok Leyland truck bearing Regd. No.OR-04M-5166  with the financial assistance of the O.P  availing a  loan of  Rs 17,31,245/- .Thereafter taken a loan of 10,50,000/- from the O.P  in toto Rs.27,81,245/-  on the strength of loan –cum- hypothecation agreement. As per term and condition of loan cum hypothecation agreement  the petitioner was directed by the o.p to clear of the entire  loan amount with interest  within  the stipulated period . It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner  has already paid  Rs 23,89,554/ till date  to  the O.P  ( loan amount with interest) but due to accident of the vehicle and financial stringency  resulted due to closure of mines  and rainy season the  Petitioner  became defaulter and at present he is  liable to make payment of Rs.16,55,773.89/-   towards defaulted amount as per demand of the O.P.

                That as against the above defaulted situation the O.P is trying to sale the above vehicle after repossession  as well as  illegally claim 16,55,773.89 /-  as outstanding amount charging 36 % as DPC instead of 9% which is violated the guide line of Hon,ble  High Court of Odisha passed in W.P (C) No.17720/09   and constitution  bench of Supreme Court reported in A.I.R -2001 ,p-3095     .Accordingly the petitioner  has filed the present dispute with the prayer that  the O.P  may be directed  not to sale /repossess the vehicle till  finalization of the present dispute and to  charge 9%   per annum instead of  36 %     as per observation of  Hon’ble    High court of Odisha and Supreme court .

                The notice of the present dispute was  duly served on the O.Ps   by this Fora but the O.P did not choose to file any objection or written version  though   specific time limit prescribed by the statute of the C.P.Act 1986 . Hence the O.P  has  been  set  exparte on dt.26.05.18

On the date of hearing  we heard the argument from the side of the petitioner.                                   After perusal of the record and documents available it is observed that  it is un disputed fact that  the petitioner purchased the alleged vehicle with the financial assistance of the O. P . In the mean time due to financial stringency the petitioner became defaulter .

                On the other hand when we verified  the  complaint petition  the petitioner himself admitted that he availed a loan  of Rs 17,31,245/- and  then  taken Rs.10,50,000/- from the O.P  in toto Rs.27,81,245/ and the petitioner grievance  center round  on the above amount .Hence we are inclined to hold that  this Fora has no pecuniary jurisdiction  to entertain the  above dispute. Accordingly the dispute is dismissed on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction and the petitioner is liberty to   file the present dispute  on proper court of law if he so likes .    

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st  day of  August,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.