Consumer Complaint Case No.55 of 2010. Case: Deepak Kumar Parida Vs 1. Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd., 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bhubaneswar. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberConsumer Complaint Case No.55 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. S.P. Mohanty & Associates and For Respondent: Mr. A.C. Swain & Associate
JudgesShri A.K. Samantaray, President And Shrimati Smarita Mohanty, Member
IssueConsumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17
Judgement DateSeptember 17, 2010
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


A.K. Samantaray, President

  1. This is a consumer complaint under section 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the complainant Deepak Kumar Parida alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and adoption of unfair trade practice by them and claiming price of the hire purchase vehicle, which is the subject-matter of the complaint, payment on account of loss of business, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation amounting to Rs.22,17,768/- in toto from opposite party no.1-Branch Manager, Magma Fincorp Ltd., Bhubaneswar in thedistrict of Khurda.

  2. The case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint petition, is that he is the guarantor for his mother late Kanaklata Panda, who, for the sake of earning livelihood and maintaining her family, decided to purchase a Tata truck SK-1613 with the financial assistance of opposite party no.1. For that purpose, she had approached opposite party no.1 for sanction of loan and ultimately opposite party no.1 agreed for the same. Opposite party no.1 provided finance for the vehicle on the basis of a loan agreement dated 30.06.2008 to the tune of Rs.l8,60,000/-. The number of E.M.I. was fixed to be 47 at the rate of Rs.26,600/- each. Repayment was to start on 01.07.2008 and the last instalment was to be paid on 01.06.2012. The vehicle was purchased and was registered under the R.T.O., Keonjhar bearing Registration No.OR 09K 7970. After purchase of the vehicle, the same was plying from Paradeep to Keonjhar and the instalments as per the schedule were being paid regularly. Suddenly, opposite party no.1 repossessed the vehicle on 08.05.2010 at Chandikhol at about 8.00 A.M. in the morning without any prior notice. Possession of the vehicle was taken forcibly from the driver. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of such forcible repossession of the vehicle, 22 instalments as per the instalment schedule were to be paid, but since the mother of the complainant, i.e., the loanee and hire purchaser, expired in the year 2009, due to difficulties only 17 instalments had been paid and five instalments as against the vehicle were due amounting to Rs.1,33,000/-. After repossession of the vehicle, the complainant, who is the guarantor for the loanee-his mother late Kanaklata Panda, approached opposite party no.1 to know about the reason of the said repossession and he was told by opposite party no.1 that since there was default in payment of the loan, the vehicle was repossessed. The complainant assured opposite party no.1 to pay the balance amount so that the entire loan instalament can be paid, but opposite party no.1 was bent upon not to release the vehicle even in case the complainant repaid the defaulted dues towards the E.M.I. The complainant was left with no option than to approach opposite party no.1 for release of the vehicle since Kanaklata Panda, the mother of the complainant, being the loanee, had made her own investment in addition to the loan amount of Rs.8,60,000/-, but opposite party no.1 in a very clever and tactful manner replied that the vehicle would be released only after discussion. From the attitude of opposite party no.1, the complainant apprehended that the vehicle might have been sold to some other person making the complainant to suffer financial loss as well as loss of livelihood. Finding no other way, he filed the present complaint before this Commission on 25.05.2010 and the matter was listed on 02.06.2010. On that day, learned counsel who usually appears for opposite party no.1 was present in this Commission and was requested to get instruction. He requested to list the matter on the next day,; i.e., 03.06.2010. On 03.06.2020, when the matter was again listed, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 filed Vakalatnama and submitted that the vehicle in...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT