Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shri. Balasaheb S/O. Ramrao Lad vs M/S. Shriram Trnasport Finance on 16 December, 2013

                                       1                            F.A. No. 343-13



           MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
       REDRESSALCOMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
                      AURANGABAD.

                                                    Date of filing: 22.11.2013
                                                    Date of Order: 16.12.2013

FIRST APPEAL NO.:343 OF 2013
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 117 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: PARBHANI.

Shri. Balasaheb S/o. Ramrao Lad
R/o. Malsonna Tq. Dist. Parbhani.                   ... Appellant

       VERSUS
The Manager,
M/s. Shriram Trnasport Finance
Co. Ltd.Branch, Parbhani,
1st Floor, Bardale Complex,
Near Trupti Mangal Karyalaya,
Basmat Road, Parbhani.                                    ... Respondent

Coram :   Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.

Present: Adv. Shri. M. B. Ubale, proxy for appellant.

None for the respondent.

- :: ORAL JUDGMENT:: -

(Delivered on 16th December, 2013) Per Shri. S. M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 25.10.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Parbhani dismissing consumer complaint No.117/2012. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as "complainant" and respondent as the "opponent finance company"). Considering the facts of the case we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, on 14.01.2008 the complainant had borrowed loan Rs.4,00,000/- from the opponent finance company for purchasing a truck. It was agreed to repay the loan with interest 2 by monthly 45 installments of Rs.13,033/-. Accordingly agreement for hypothecation was executed between the complainant and opponent finance company. It is alleged that the opponent finance company without any prior notice illegally repossessed the hypothecated vehicle and sold it at low price. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent finance company, the complainant has filed consumer complaint, claiming compensation Rs.1,50,000/- for sustaining loss due to illegal seizure of the vehicle and additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing mental harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of complaint.

3. The opponent finance company by its written version resisted the complaint, contending inter-alia that it has legally repossessed and sold vehicle as the complainant has committed willful default in payment of loan amount. It is submitted that since complainant failed to pay any amount and thereby committed default, pre-repossession notice was issued to the complainant but the complainant did not bother to comply the notice and therefore it has legally repossessed the vehicle and sold it and there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4. On hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record the District Consumer Forum has held that the opponent finance company has legally repossessed and sold the hypothecated vehicle and there was no deficiency in service on the part of opponent. In keeping with these finding the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6. We heard Shri. M. B. Ubale, proxy advocate appearing for the appellant. Perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint and written version and considering the facts of the matter we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission.

7. It is submitted by Adv. Ubale, proxy advocate appearing for the appellant/complainant that there was compromise in between the parties and it was agreed to pay the amount of dues by installment and accordingly the complainant has paid first installment of Rs.8500/- to the opponent finance company. But thereafter the opponent finance company without any notice repossessed the hypothecated vehicle and illegally sold it though the complainant was ready and willing to pay the amount of dues. But we find no force in the submission of Adv. Ubale, proxy advocate appearing for the appellant/complainant, because no record about alleged compromise is produced on record. On the contrary, the record clearly reflects that the complainant committed willful default and therefore the opponent finance company was constrained to repossess the vehicle by issuing notice. It also reflects that pre-repossession notice was served on the complainant, but the complainant failed to comply with the notice by payment of the outstanding dues. Therefore the District Consumer Forum has rightly held and dismissed the complaint.

8. We find no any glaring error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference in warranted.

9. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence the following order.

O R D E R

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.

            (K. B. Gawali)                      (S.M. Shembole)
            Member                         Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar