PRASAN MOHAPATRACOMPLAINANT Vs. MAGMA LEASING LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the Secretary of a voluntary organization called Orissa Voluntary Association for Rural Socio Development. He has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties claiming a total sum of Rs. 12,00,000 on different counts.

(2.) Briefly stated his case is that the Orissa Voluntary Organisation is a voluntary organization formed for rural socio development. In order to carry out its objectives, it intended to purchase one vehicle from the financier opposite party No. 10-M/s. Magma Leasing Limited. Accordingly the complainant got the vehicle Marshall of Mahindra and Mahindra make bearing registration No. OR-02M-4233 by executing hire purchase agreement on 2.12.1999 from the opposite party No. 1. Against the total price of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 4,52,246 (Rupees 3,69,146 towards the cost of the vehicle and Rs. 83,100 as interest) he made down payment of Rs. 92,146 and the balance amount was scheduled to be paid in thirty-six instalments at the rate of Rs. 10,003 per month. In terms of the agreement he was regularly paying the instalments through his banker by way of post-dated cheques. On 26.2.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. when the vehicle was going to Bhubaneswar in connection with the work of the organization, the opposite parties 2 and 3 claiming to be the recovery officers of opposite party No. 1 stopped the vehicle on the way with the help of some hooligans and took away the vehicle forcibly by obtaining the signature of the driver on blank paper. On that day complainant was absent. On the next day (27.2.2002) when the driver informed him about the incident he lodged F.I.R. before the Mancheswar Police Station stating that the opposite parties forcibly took away the vehicle. As no action was taken by the police he filed a complaint in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar. The vehicle was purchased on 2.12.1999 from the opposite party No. 1 for Rs. 3,69,146 which was to be paid in thirty-six equated monthly instalments. The last month for closing the instalment was November, 2002. By the date of seizure (26.2.2002) he had already paid total amount of Rs. 3,75,175 on twenty-six instalments. By that time payment of future instalment had not arisen and the opposite parties without any justification took away the vehicle by exhibiting their muscle power. According to the complainant this amounts to deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite parties have filed a joint written version. Their case is that the complainant failed/neglected in making payment of the instalments on due dates as stipulated in the agreement and by exercising of its right under Clause 15 of the agreement they repossessed the vehicle. Their further case is that in the agreement there is an arbitration clause and since an alternative remedy is available the complaint is not maintainable. The opposite parties have also filed affidavit evidence sworn to by one P.N. Samal who is the recovery and legal assistant of opposite party No. 1.