State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd., vs Pratime Yayaswal, on 24 January, 2022
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ORISSA, CUTTACK
FA. No 2008
(Arising out of Judgment dated 25.7.08 passed by the DCDRF,
Consumer Complaint No.39/2008
Sundargarh-1 in
In the matter of
An appeal /s 15 of the C.P.Act
And
In the matter of
1.Branch Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd.
(Presently known as Magma Fincorp Ltd. Rourkela Branch,2n floor, Uditnagar,Rourkela P.S.Uditnagar, Dist. Sundargarh Divisional Manager, Magma Leasing Ltd.
(Presently known as Magma Fincorp Ltd.) C.V. and C.E.Finance Divn.
Magma Street, Calcutta Jhulu Behera, aged about 25 years S/o Satya Behera, At-
P.O. Sundargarh, Patrapada,Sundargarh 4 Kamala Naik Prop. of Kamala Stock Yard At- Beheramal, Jharsuguda PO/PS/Dist. Sundargarh (The appellants are Op.Nos. 1 to 4 in the lower forum) (The Appellants are rpresented through its legal executive and power of attorney holder Shri Srimanta Dash) APPELLANTS Versus Pratima Jayaswal, aged about 38 years W/o Pradeep Jayaswal, R/o RRIT Colony, Sundargarh P.O.Rangadhipa, P.S.Town, Dist. Sundargarh (The Respondent No.1 is the complainant in the lower forum) RESPONDENT The above named appellants beg to submit as follows:
1. That the judgement/order dated 25.7.08 passed by the learned District Forum, Sundargarh, in C.C.No.39/2008 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal and the SI. No. Date of of Order Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order F.A.686 OF 2008 422 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
2 None appears for the respondent. 3 This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protectioon Act, 1986(herein-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.
4. The adumbrated case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a second hand truck bearing No.OR-16 A 4228 being financed by OP for Rs.1,80,000/- with the terms and conditions to repay same in 23 monthly instalments. The complainant has already paid 2 SI. No. Date of Office note as to action (if any), of Order Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order upto 12 instalments but due to dfficulty could not pay further instalments, the OP issued the eminder to clear the instalmerts. However on 22.04.2008 the OP, without any notice tepossessed the vehicle and sold out same. The complainant alleged such action of the OP as illegal. So, the complaint was filed.
The OP no.1 & 2 filed written version stating that the complainant was financed by hem but due to default of payment of loan the yehicle was repossessed on 21.04.2008. The complainant was served with the pre-sale notice put no action was taken by the ¢omplainant. So, he vehicle was sold. Thus, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.
oGP-MP-CTCP (FS&cW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020 SI. No. Date of of Order Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Office note as to action (if any).
taken on Order
6. Learned District Forum,after hearing both the parties passed the following order:
Xxx XXX XXX "Thus, under the ahove circumstances, we allow the case of the cpmplainant and the Ops to pay a of sum Rs|1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) only as comperisation for loss and harassment to the complainant within 30days from the date of receipf of this order alongwith Rs.5,000/{Rupees Fiye thousand) only as itigation cost.,failing whjch. it would cary 12 % interest.per annum on the awarded amount from the date of this order on the date of actual payment Further we ditect the OP No.1 and 2 to closes the loan account of the complainant and return back the post dated cheques which they have taken from the complainant within the above period. "
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned 2. SI. No. Dato of Office note as to action (if any), ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order of Order| Order the written version and order without considering $ubmission of the OP. According to him, the the yehicle was repossessed with due notice on party for payment of EMI. He also drew attentioon to the fact that there was pre--sale notice also served. After sale there is outstanding against District Forum the complainant. So, learned to have taken in to consideration about ought is defjciency of service such facts.. Thus, there no on the part of the OP.
Considered the subnnission of learned 8 for the appellant, peru_ed the DFR and counsel impugned order.
9 It is for the complajnant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that the complainant has got OGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020 SI. No. Date of Office note as to action (if any), of Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE Order taken on Order finance from the OP. It is hot in dispute that the complainant has paid more than 50 % of the instalments. The complainant proved the copies of the receipts and statement of account where it is found that on 01.022008 there is only outstanding of Rs.41,441/- The OP has not filed any documents to show that they have issued any prior notice of seizure br pre-sale notice. It is only available from the documents dtd.18.04.2008 that they Ihave threatening to repossess the vehicle but on 21.04.2008 they have seized the vehicle. This fact shows that the OP are not only violated the agreement but also involved in unfair trade ptactice. Of course no agreement is filed to shdw his bonafideness. Therefore, the repossessioh and sale of vehicle 2 as to action (if any), SI. No. Date of Office note taken on Order ORDER WITH SIGNATURE of Order Order are illegal. In this regard, this Commission is in agreement of the view taken by the learned District Forum.
10. But it appears that learned District Forum has imposed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- whereas there is only outstandirng of Rs.41,4411- as on 01.02.2008 against the complainant.
11. Considering all such aspects this Commission while confirming the order of the earned District Forum modified the impugned prder by directing the OP to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensatidn within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it should be recovered with interest at the ate of 9 % per annum from the date of OGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020 as to action (if any), SI. No. Date of Office note taken on Order ORDER ITH SIGNATURE of Order Order order till date of|payment. Rest of the impugned impugned order remained naltered.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No Cost Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties ot they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent batk forthwith.
V (D.D.P.Choudhury,J) President