State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Santuka Associates Pvt. Ltd., A ... vs Manager, Citi Motors, C/O Citi Corp ... on 20 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ORISSA: CUTTACK CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.74 OF 2009 M/s Santuka Associates Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the ... Complainant Versus 1. Manager, CITI Motors, C/O CITI Corp Finance India Ltd., 1st Floor, SBI Life Insurance Building, Bhoinagar, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar Dist. Khurda 2. Managing Director, CITI Corp Finance (I) Ltd., 1, Hochiminch Sarani, Metro Plaza, 7th Floor, Kolkata 3. CITI Corp Finance (I) Ltd., Asset Based Finance, 2nd Floor, CITI Corp Centre, Plot No.C/61, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 4. Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O>), At/P.O./Dist. Angul ... Opposite Parties For Complainant - Mr. Sk. F. Ahmed & Associates For Opp. Parties - Mr. P.K.Nayak & Associate P R E S E N T : THE HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT SHRI SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER AND SHRIMATI BASANTI DEVI, MEMBER O R D E R
DATE:- The 20 October, 2009.
Justice A.K. Samantaray, President.
Complainant Lambodar Sahoo, who is an unemployed educated youth, to eke his livelihood by self-employment, ventured to purchase a 10-wheeler Ashok Leyland-2214 (Tuskar Gold Model) chasis obtaining finance from opposite party no.1-the Manager, CITI motors, C/O CITI Corp Finance India Ltd., 1st Floor, SBI Life Insurance Building, Bhoinagar, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar. The cost of the said chasis was Rs.9,48,680/-. The complainant had to make down payment of Rs.1,03,689/-. After the complainant entered into an agreement with the financing company vide Agreement No. M 293032801, which was executed on 16.09.2004 and on his making the down payment of the afore-mentioned amount, the chasis bearing number LWE 535918 with engine bearing number LWE 399438 was supplied to him. After the chasis was handed over to the complainant on 22.09.2004 from M/s Gupta Automobiles, Angul, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towards body building of the said 10-wheeler Leyland truck, and after completion of all formalities of body building, the vehicle was duly registered with the Regional Transport Officer, Angul and registration number OR-19B-1036 was allotted by the said R.T.O. Simultaneously, the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company from 20.10.2004 to 21.09.2005 and insurance amount of Rs.31,555/- was paid by the complainant. The financing company had offered 47 instalments for repayment of the financed amount, which started from 10.10.2004 and was to be completed on 16.08.2008. The amount of each instalment, which the complainant was to pay, was fixed at Rs.23,712/- and the disbursal date was fixed on 16th of September, 2004 for the amount of loan of Rs.8,45,000/-. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the monthly instalment of Rs.23,712/- every month and he never defaulted in making payment of the monthly EMI as per the disbursal date fixed in the agreement. The complainant started to ply the vehicle for the purpose of earning his livelihood. In the hire purchase agreement, which was executed between the complainant and the financing company, there was a specific condition that the opposite party-financer would bear the insurance charge of the vehicle and the insurance charge was included in the EMI of Rs.23,712/-. Since the complainant did not have a copy of the agreement with him for being clarified about the position, he requested the opposite party-financer to provide him with a copy thereof, but the financer did not heed to his request. On 24.12.2008, the complainant sent a letter to all the opposite parties by registered post with A.D. requesting them to provide him with a copy of the agreement. Since no insurance was done in respect of the vehicle after expiry of the first one, the complainant could not run the vehicle. Ultimately, with the hope to get the insurance amount adjusted with the payment of the EMI, the complainant made payment of the insurance amount with the instalment dues and deposited Rs.31,555/- and Rs.18,822/- for the period from 27.10.2006 to 26.10.2007. It is stated in the complaint that from the date of purchase of/taking over the vehicle by the complainant, i.e., 22.09.2004, till 27.10.2006, the complainant had already made payment of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to the opposite party-financing company by way of regular payment of instalments and the complainant had never defaulted at any point of time. The opposite party-financer was receiving the monthly instalments of Rs.23,712/- per month. Though it had to adjust towards insurance of the vehicle, it never adjusted the same. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 21.09.2006 and another sum of Rs.23,800/- on 30.11.2006 to the financing company. But, all on a sudden, the vehicle of the complainant was seized by the financer on 10.11.2006 and only after payment of Rs.55,000/- along with repossession charge of Rs.10,000/- and stock yard charge of Rs.3,300/-, it was released on 12.12.2006. The complainant after taking possession of the vehicle did not default in making payment of the EMI to opposite party no.1 in any manner whatsoever. He was making payment regularly and was plying the vehicle. But, without any prior notice, all on a sudden on 14.03.2007 the vehicle was seized/repossessed by opposite party no.1 at Keonjhar with the help of anti-socials and hooligans. At the time of such seizure/ repossession, the vehicle was loaded with coal worth Rs.30,000/-, which was going to M/s MSP Sponge Iron Ltd. The vehicle, according to the complainant, was being maintained in a very meticulous way and was in very good running condition. With a mala fide intention to grab the vehicle and sell it away in its market value, which would not have been less than Rs.12,00,000/-, it was seized by the help of muscle power. Had the vehicle not been seized, the complainant would have become the absolute owner thereof, and with that hope, he was meticulous in making repayment of the monthly EMIs and was maintaining the vehicle in a very decent manner. By such forcible repossession without notice, the complainant sustained damage to the extent of Rs.12,00,000/-, i.e., the approximate market price of the vehicle at that point of time, and also sustained loss to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/-. The coal loaded in the truck worth Rs.30,000/- was also taken away and the same was to be made good to the Sponge Iron company, to whom it was being transported. Apart from that, the complainant suffered mental agony, which he has assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- for such unjust, illegal and arbitrary action of the financing company.
2. The complaint was filed before this Commission on 13.08.2007 and notices were issued to all the opposite parties, i.e., the financing company (opposite parties 1 to 3) and the Regional Transport Officer, angul. In pursuance of such notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance through Mr. P.K. Nayak and Associates. After; hearing learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3, direction was imparted by this Commission to opposite party no.1 to receive an amount of Rs.1,18,560/-from the complainant, if the same was paid by 31.12.2008, and release the repossessed/seized vehicle in his favour within 24 hours from receipt of the said amount. Thereafter, although the complainant approached the financing company with Bank Draft for the aforesaid amount, the vehicle was not released. When the matter was brought to our notice and we directed opposite parties 1 to 3, specifically opposite party no.1, to show as to why coercive action should not be taken for disobedience of order of this Commission, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties 1 to 3 withdrew his power on 02.02.2009 stating that he had no instruction from the said opposite parties. This Commission directed personal appearance of opposite party no.1 sending notice through registered post, but that was not heeded to. Opposite party no.1 neither appeared personally nor engaged any other counsel. Ultimately, opposite parties 1 to 3 were set ex parte and the matter was heard ex parte.
3. We have perused the documents filed and heard the learned counsel for the complainant. In absence of any rebuttal pleading through written version, we have no other alternative than to accept the version of the complainant. This gets very much fortified from the attitude of opposite parties 1 to 3, the financing company, who only after three months of release of the vehicle in favour of the complainant and before the date of payment of the EMI, which was fixed to 16th of every month, seized the vehicle on 14.03.2007 and thereafter did not release the same even on the complainants tendering payment of the amount as directed by this Commission. Although these opposite parties appeared in the complaint, they did not respond to the direction of this Commission. When the question of release of the vehicle arose, as directed by this Commission, they did not give any instruction to their counsel, who had no other go than to withdraw from the dispute on their behalf. We have already mentioned that after withdrawal of the counsel, the financing company, specifically opposite party no.1, was directed either to engage a new counsel or appear personally, but he did not respond to it and the Commission had no other alternative than to set opposite parties 1 to 3 ex parte.
4. In the aforementioned situation, we allow the complaint against opposite parties 1 to 3 ex parte and, finding them guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice, hold them jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and direct them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs), which includes the amount of down payment, money spent on body building, repayment made to the financing company up to the date of seizure/repossession of the vehicle, compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses. This amount shall be paid by the afore-mentioned opposite parties within a period of 60 days, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till actual payment.
.......
(Justice A.K. Samantaray) President ........
(Subash Mahtab) Member ..............................
(Basanti Devi) Member SCDRC, Orissa, Cuttack October , 2009/Nayak