State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, M/S. Tata Motors ... vs Smt. Pramila Panda & Others. on 28 October, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION,ODISHA,CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2OO9
(From an order dated 2.4.2OO9 passed by the District Consumer
Forum, Gajapati in C.C. No. 7 of 2008)
1. The Branch Manager,
M/s Tata Motor Finance, Branch office,
At Unit - III, Kharavel Nagar,
Near Gurudwar Singh Seva,
Bhubaneswar
2. Tata Motors Ltd.,
M/s Tata Motors Finance Office,
At - Bombay House,24 Homi Modi Street,
Mumbai House - 400 001
Appellants
Vrs.
1. Smt. Pramila Panda, aged about 55 years,
W/o Late Neelachala panda,
AtlVilllPo/Ps - Main Road, Mohana,
Dist - Gajapati
2. Sri Dharmandra Sahu,
S/o Jagili Sahu,
At - Rushikulya Transport, Aska Road,
Vill/Po - Berhampur
Dist - Ganjam
3. Sri Kedar Panda,
S/o Late Prafulla Kumar Panda,
At - Kabi Chandra Street,
Vill I Po I Ps - Parlakhemundi,
Dist - Gajapati
Respondents
For the appellant : M/s R.K.Pattnaik & Associates
For respondent No.1: M/s R.K.Mohapatra & Associates
PRESENT:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY, PRESIDENT,
DR.P.K.PRUSTY, MEMBER
AND
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK, MEMBER
DATED THE zgth OCTOBER,2022
ORDER
MISS S.L.PATTNAIK. MEMBER Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. This Appeal is filed U/S 15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986 (here in after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the Learned District Forum.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased a vehicle after getting it financed from the O.P.no.l for maintaining his livelihood. There was a loan executed between the complainant and O.P.no.l and 2 on 30.06.2006 and O.P.no.1 paid Rs.7,47,OOO/- to the supplier of vehicle M/ S consortiurn Autornobiles Pvt.Ltcl, Bubaneswar and the complainant had paid Rs.l ,87 ,847 /- towards down payment. The complainant has to repay the said loan in 47 monthly instalments. The O.P.no.3 was guarantor for such payment. The complainant has alleged that she has paid Rs.2,5L,7OOl by cash and drafts to O.Ps from August-2OO6 to 17th Decernber'2OO7 and not able to pay certain instalments. Due to non-payment of dues the said vehicle bearing Regd.No.oR-203846(TATA)32s sTD bus was repossessed by o.Ps on 2r.12.2oo7 without issuing any prior notice to her. It is also averred that on 03.01.2008, the complainant had approached the o.Ps to pay the remaining instalments amounts till February -2oo8 but the o.ps refused to accept it. The complainant further averred that the o.ps have not served the copy of the loan agreement to him but took signature on blank and printed papers as well as on blank cheques. Hence the complainant Iiled this complaint.
4. Upon notice being served on O.ps, the O.P.no.1 entered appearance through their counsel and filed their written version jointly. O.ps have denied all the allegations of the complainant. The learned counsel for the O.Ps submitted tl:.at, the complainant was a defaulter and the vehicle was re-possessed after issuing prior notice in terms of the loan agreement entered into between the parties. The O.ps also submits that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.9,34,847 f -, down payment Rs. L,87 ,847 f -, net finance amount Rs.7 ,47 ,OOO f - , interest amount was Rs. 1 ,73,3O4 f - , Insurance provision was Rs.6O,O OO / - and thus the contract value was Rs.9,80,3O4/-.The O.Ps further submitted that before repossession a notice was issued to the complainant on O7.O7.2OO7 with a request to pay Rs. 93,736.40 /- till July-2007. After receipt of the notice the complainant had paid Rs.38,0OOl- on 21.O7.2OO7, Rs.22,0OO/- on 29.08.20O7 and Rs.22,OOO / - on 17 .I2.2OO7 and there was a deficit of Rs. 1 L ,7 36.40 / - . The complainant has become defaulter for payment of Rs. 1,03,983 / - for the period from August to Decernber-2OO7. The complainant has not taken any steps to release her vehicle. So there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps and prayed to dismissed the complaint.
The O.Ps further stated that the complainant had failed to pay the monthly instalments and hence the said vehicle was repossessed by the O.P.no.1 and 2. As on date trf repossessit-rrr i.e 21.I2.2OO7 tlicre is a-tr outstanding dues of Rs. L ,L8,O2O.4O /-against the complainant.
The O.P.no.3 and 4 had not appeared in this case.
5. After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
oxx xxx After considering the undisputed documentary euidence, pleadings, affidauits and oral submfssions at length u)e are of clear opinion that tlrcre is deficiency of seruice bg o.p.no.l to 3. Therefore the Forum orders the o.Ps 1 to 3 to hand ouer the bus of the cost of the bus and. /oss as claimed by complainant and" paA a sum of Rs.3O 000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ _ toutard.s the cost of the case within 30 days from the d.ate of this order."
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order of the learned District Forum is ilegat, mis-conceived., ambiguous and wrong appreciation of facts and law and the District Forum has not applied judicial mind while passing this order. counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent/ complainant had committed default in paying the instalments and the appellant repossessed the vehicle by issuing prior notice in terms of the agreement entered between the parties. The vehicle was repossessed on 2r.r2.2oo7 after issuing a notice on oz.or.2ooz to the complainant and there was rru r.esponse from her.
7. The learned counsel for the respond.ent submitted that, the complainant/ respondent had paid total Rs. 2,5L,zoo/- till L7.r2.2oo7 and could not pay rest of the instalments. But the appellant without giving prior notice, repossessed the vehicle which is illegal and she was deprived of the income from the vehicle and consequently she was not able to pay loan amount to the bank. The respondent further
10. We have gone through the notice dated O7.O7.2OOT issued to the complainant by registered post \Mith A.D prior to the repossession of the vehicle. By this notice, the complainant was directed to pay the arrears of Rs.93,736.4O /- till July-2OO7 . The O.ps in their written version stated that after receipt of which, the complainant had paid Rs.38,0OO / - on 2L.O7 .2OO7 , Rs.22,0OO I - on
29.O8.2007 and Rs.22,0OO / - on 17 .L2.2OO7 after that there was a deficit of Rs. Lt ,736.40 / and Rs. 1 ,03,983 / - was due against her till August to Decernber-2OO7. The legal notice clearly mentioned that the vehicle will be repossessed" as per terms and conditions if the complainant failed to pay within 14 days. The schedule of dues shows that total Rs.7,87,379 /- is outstanding against the complainant from O2.O7 .2OO7 to 02.06.20 10.
1 1. After perusal of the money receipts filed it appears that she had paid Rs.3B,OOO l- on 21.O7.2OO7 , Rs.22,OOO /- on29.O8.2OO7 and Rs.22,0OOl- on 17.12.2OO7 to O.Ps after receipt of the prior notice for repossession, so the complainant cannot deny that she has not received the notice issued by O.Ps prior to repossession.
12. The Agreement-cum- Hypothecation at clause- 18- consequences of event of default clearly provides that the monthly instalment are to be paid on monthly basis and any delay or default in paying the monthly instalment is a breach in the terms and conditions of the agreement and clause gives the opposite party a legal right to repossess the vehicle to secure the loan payment in the event of default and also to sell the asset to secure the loan amount.
13. We rely on the decision of the Apex court in Managing Director,Orix Auto Finance (India)Ltd,Vrs-Sri Jagmander Singh & another(2oo6) 1 SCC-708,it was stated that the financer can repossess the vehicle as agreement permits the financer to take the possession of the finance vehicle. L4. In the instant case the complainant was the defaulter in payment of loan. The O.P before repossession sent notice to the complainant through registered post with A.D on 07 .O7 .2OO7. There is nothing to show that the vehicle was repossessed forcibly. We are of the considered view that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat szune as copy supplied from this Commission.
/\'':')' Q6-(s'ib (Dr.D.P.Choudhury J) President .........;i;...draa-
(Dr.P.K.Prusty) ,fuy*.**-.r,'"
(Miss S.L.Pattnaik) Member