State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karim Ullah vs Sri Ram Transport Finance on 6 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2013/404 ( Date of Filing : 04 Mar 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Karim Ullah a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sri Ram Transport Finance a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 06 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P., Lucknow. Appeal No. 404 of 2013 Karim Ullah s/o Jumai, R/o Mohalla Gallamandi, P.S. Dargah Sharif, Distt. Bahraich. ....Appellant. Versus 1- Khand Adhikari Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Suraj Deep Complex, E-Block, 01 Japling road, Lucknow-226001 2- Amrish Kumar Mishra s/o Unknown, Manager, Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., first Floor, Balaji Complex, Bank of Baroda Bhawan, Chhawni Bazar, Gulam Alipura, Bahraich. 3- Waseem Alias Gappu s/o Shakoor 4- Nazeer s/o Unknown 5- Saleem s/o Unknown All 3 to 5 R/o Mohalla, Ghosiyana, P.S., Dargah Sharif, Distt. Bahraich. ...Respondents. BEFORE: 1- Hon'ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member. None for the appellant. Sri Adil Ahmad, Advocate for Respondent no.1 & 2. None for Respondents no.3 to 5. Dated : 20.11.2023 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred by the complainants against the judgment and order dated 31.1.2013 passed by Ld. District Consumer Commission, Ghaziabad in complaint case no.31 of 2010, Karim Ullah vs. Khand Adhikari Sriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.& ors.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the ld. District Forum failed to decide the matter and has not considered that the appellant has lodged the FIR against the respondent no.2 to 5 for forcibly looting the vehicle truck no.HR 45 2208 on the gun point from the appellant. The appellant has taken a loan of Rs.2,25,000.00 against the said truck on 17.4.2008 and against this loan he has deposited Rs.1,01,825.00 to the respondents. The respondents have issued receipt of Rs.10,300.00 on 29.6.2008, Rs.100.00 on 10.7.2008, Rs. 20,000.00 on 5.1.2009. Thereafter, they issued receipt of Rs.40,000.00, Rs.10,425.00 and Rs.21,000.00 against his loan before the respondent no.1 & 2 were paid and thus, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.1,01,825.00.
The respondents have forcibly occupied the aforesaid vehicle from the appellant and on 30.7.2009 when the appellant was talking about his business to the driver Jagdev Prasad after parking his truck near petrol pump at Galla Mandi an incident occurred about which he has lodged FIR under section 323/504/506/419/420/392 IPC in crime no.1347/09 P.S. Dargah Sharif, Bahraich through the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. because the respondents have snatched the vehicle against law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made guidelines for recovery of the loan to the bank and other financial company and specifically prohibited to use criminal force or the muscles power. The respondents have violated the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appellant has purchased the vehicle for carrying the business of transportation of goods and opposite parties snatched away the vehicle illegally and sold out. The appellant was put in total loss in absence of his truck.
The respondents should have approached to appropriate forum for recovery of the loan, if any. The local police have not investigated in the matter properly and without recording any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Jagdeo Prasad Maurya who was witness and present at the time of incident, submitted final report. The appellant has filed protest application before the CJM, Bahraich. The respondents at the time of disbursing the loan, took the signatures of the appellant on some blank papers and after snatching the vehicle they used this blank papers against the appellant as surrender paper before the ld. District Forum.
The ld. District Forum wrongly considered the surrender paper. The ld. District Forum has illegally relying upon the reply filed by the respondents which is liable to be rejected because the same was not maintainable and not proved as asserted. The ld. District Forum wrongly entertained the application of the respondents filed on 13.7.2012 for recall of ex-parte order dated 12.6.2012 without jurisdiction and the same is illegally allowed. Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly be please to allow the appeal after setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
We have heard Sri Adil Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2. None appeared for the appellant and respondents no.3 to 5.
We have perused the impugned judgment, pleadings, evidences and arguments available on record.
In this case, regarding snatch of vehicle, there is no cogent evidence on record. The FIR lodged by the complainant was found false, therefore, police submitted final report. The IO did not find the occurrence as revealed by the complainants but it was found that the complainant has voluntarily parked the vehicle in the premises of the finance company. The complainant has himself gave the custody of the vehicle to the opposite parties no.1 & 2. In this custody letter, the complainant has admitted that due to non-deposition of the installments, he is parking his vehicle in the premises of the finance company. Therefore, there is no evidence regarding use of muscle man by the opposite parties or snatching of the vehicle. The complainant has never said that his signature on the custody papers were taken by force.
The ld. District Forum has considered all these facts and thereafter dismissed the complaint which needs no interference by this court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Kumar) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Dated 20.11.2023 Jafri, PA I Court 2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER