HomeData CenterDecisions99/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2021/PN Pdg

99/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2021/PN Pdg

Ade Hasmariza Saputra vs. PT. Clipan Finance Indonesia Tbk
  • Rendered: 2021-08-04
  • Court: District Court
  • Ruling: -
  • Case: Criminal Law
  • Chief Judge: Juandra, S.H.
  • Panel of Judges: Rinaldi Triandiko, S.H., M.H.; Reza Himawan Pratama, S.H., M. Hum.

Summary

Legal Issues

  1. Defaults relating to Financing restructuring agreements as well as withdrawals of fiduciary guarantee object.

 

Case Facts

  1. Objection Petitioner as Debtor has been aggrieved by the Objection Respondent, namely by unilateral Withdrawal of Fiduciary Guarantee Object in the form of one unit of four-wheeled vehicle Brand/Type: Honda Brio DD 2 1.3 E A/T, Chassis No.: MRHDD2860CP310577, Engine No.: L13Z51202018, Year 2012, Color: Metallic Green ("Brio Car"), whereas in accordance with the Financing Agreement between the Objection Petitioner and Objection Respondent which has been set forth in the restructuring Agreement Number of Multipurpose Financing agreement no. 85509821811 dated 31 May 2018, Second Amendment (II) dated 13 November 2020.
  2. It has only recently been discovered by the Objection Petitioner that, in the Contract between the Objection Petitioner and Objection Respondents, there is a Second Amendment (II) to the Multipurpose Agreement dated 13 November 2021 which was previously hidden by the Objection Respondent.
  3. The discovery of new evidence i.e. the second (II) multipurpose financing agreement which was previously unknown by the Objection Petitioner, and due to the persistence of Objection Petitioner, new evidence was obtained for the Financing guarantee object case of Objection Petitioner, in accordance with Article 70 of Law Number 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
  4. That since the 25th (twenty-fifth) installments which was due on 31 January 2021, the Plaintiff has not fulfilled their obligation to pay the installment. The Objection Respondent has subsequently issued a policy of reschedule/restructuring to the Plaintiff for a period of 1 (one) year and 6 (six) months.
  5. That on 1 April 2021, the car which became the object of the case was confiscated by the objection respondent as stated in the Vehicle Handover Procedure Document Number: 265328 Dated 1 April 2021 (Exhibit P.5, T. 11).

 

Injuctions

  1. Decision of the Padang City Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency no. 16/P3K/IV/2021 ("Decree 16/2021"): 1) Partially grant the Plaintiff's claim; 2) Order the Plaintiff to pay the obligations to the Objection Respondent namely 5 (five) installments and a deposit amounting to 3 (three) times the installment by no later than 7 (seven) business days after the decision is read out; 3) Order the Objection Respondent to return the financing object to the Objection Petitioner after the Objection Petitioner implements point 2 (two) above; 4) Order the Objection Petitioner to continue paying the installments in accordance with the Multipurpose Financing Agreement Number: 85509821811 dated 31 May 2018; 5) Reject the Remaining claim of the Objection Petitioner.
  2. Padang District Court Decision: Repealed Decision 16/2021. In the Merits of the Case: 1) Partially grant the objections of the Objection Petitioner/Plaintiff; 2) Stated that the Objection Respondent/formerly the Defendant has committed an act which was detrimental to the Objection Petitioner/formerly the Plaintiff; 3) Order the Objection Respondent/formerly the Defendant to return 1 (one) unit of Brio Car to the Objection Petitioner/formerly the Plaintiff and order the Objection Petitioner to conduct their credit obligations to the Objection Respondent after the car was returned by the Objection Respondent to the Objection Petitioner; 4) Punish the Objection Respondent/Defendant to pay compensation to the Objection Petitioner/Plaintiff amounting to IDR100,000.00 (one hundred thousand rupiah), starting from the Withdrawal of 1 (one) Brio Car, i.e. 1 April 2021 until it is returned to the Objection petitioner which is paid directly, in cash and immediately until the car is returned to the objection petitioner; 5) Punish the Objection Respondent/Defendant to pay penalty payment (uang paksa/dwangsom) amounting to IDR200,000.00 (two hundred thousand rupiah) per day of late payment of Plaintiff's rights based on this decision which was adjusted to the calculation of vehicle rental/lease plus daily operation of the vehicle, commencing from the decision of this case has obtained permanent legal force; 6) Order the Objection Respondent/Defendant to submit and comply with this decision with all its consequences, if they refuse to do so, it shall be with the help of the relevant authorities and other relevant institutions.; 7) Punish the Objection Respondent/ Defendant to pay the entire court fee amounting to IDR450,000.00 (four hundred and fifty thousand rupiah); 8) Reject the remaining Objection of objection petitioner.

 

Legal Rules

  1. The action of objection Respondent of withdrawing the car which is the object in the above case has violated the Reschedule II agreement dated 13 November (P.4) so that the action of the objection respondent can be declared as a default.
  2. The Objection Petitioner still have arrears of debts to the Objection Respondent; therefore, they are also ordered to implement their credit obligations to Objection Respondent after the car is returned to the Objection Petitioner.
Share