State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohan Lal vs Shri Ram Transport on 11 April, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No.163/2010 Date of Decision: 11.04.2012. Shri Mohan Lal son of Shri Dila Ram, R/o Village Kakara, Post Office Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. .. Appellant Versus 1. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Parveen Rana, Kanta Niwas, Kachhi Ghatti, Shimla, H.P. 2. Shri Vikas, Incharge, Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited, Opposite UCO Bank, Darlaghat, District Solan, H.P. 3. Shri Narpat Ram son of late Shri Mohan Lal, R/o Village and Post Office Danoghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P., presently working as Agent with Libra Finance Company, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. Respondents . Coram Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Dila Ram father of the appellant For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate O R D E R:
Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Presiding Member.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.03.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.13/2006 by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby the complaint is dismissed by holding that there is no merit in the complaint. Parties hereinafter are to be referred as per their status.
2. The facts of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant had got financed a truck No.HP-13-0274 from opposite party No.1 for an amount `2,50,000/- and was required to pay the said loan in 35 equal installments of `10,100/-. Further averments in the complaint were to the effect that he was regularly defraying the loan installments to the opposite parties, and could not defray the loan installment for the month of August, 2004, which was defrayed by him in the month of November, 2004 and thereafter did not commit any default. It was also alleged that despite continuously defraying the installments, the opposite parties, on 15.12.2005 took away the vehicle from the road in the odd hours of night without intimating him, which action on the part of the opposite parties clearly amounts to an unfair trade practice Hence deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of opposite parties.
3. In this background, complaint under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 had been filed for deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, wherein relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause had been claimed.
4. This complaint was contested and resisted by the opposite parties, wherein preliminary objections vis-a-vis maintainability of the complaint was taken and on merits, it was pleaded that as per agreement, a sum of `2,50,000/- was sanctioned as a loan/financed amount and the total agreement value was assessed as `3,64,525/- which was to be repaid in 35 monthly installments of `10,415/-. It was further pleaded that the complainant did not defray the loan installments timely and committed default and a sum of `1,85,088/- was still recoverable from the complainant. However, it was admitted that the possession of the vehicle was taken on 15.12.2005, in the presence of the complainant despite the fact that the complainant did not defray the loan installments and several legal notices were issued in this behalf to the complainant. Hence, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
5. Brief resume of evidence led by the parties in nutshell is that the complainant in support of his case had filed his own affidavit and had placed reliance upon various receipts issued by the opposite parties which are pages 91-107 of the complaint file and the opposite parties in support of their case had filed affidavit of Shri Ajay Austi General Power of Attorney of respondent/company and had placed reliance upon document Annexure R-1 copy of statement of account pertaining to financing of vehicle No.HP-13-0274. Vide loan agreement and copy of various notices dated 05.09.2005, 05.11.2005 and 03.12.2005 for payments of defaulted loan installments Annexure R-2 (colly) issued to the complainant and his guarantor.
6. We have heard Mr. Dila Ram, authorized representative of the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the record of the case minutely.
7. Mr. Dila Ram, authorized representative of the appellant argued that the order of the Fora below is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside and there is no default on the part of appellant in making payment of loan installments.
8. Mr. Rajesh Verma counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the Fora below.
9. After hearing Mr. Dila Ram, authorized representative of the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Verma counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the Fora Forum which based on sound reasons as given in para-6 and 7 and as such the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Reason being that in the present case, this fact is clearly from Annexure R-1 and the version given by the respondents that the appellant is defaulter of loan granted to him for purchase of truck in question and various notices 05.09.2005, 05.11.2005 and 03.12.2005 (colly) Annexure R-2 were given to the appellant, as well as to the guarantor for making payment of defaulted amount which is clearly depicted in the notices and it is also clearly mentioned in the said notices that in case of non-payment of loan, vehicle would be repossessed, but no payment was made despite serving of registered notices.
10. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove that the truck in question was repossessed forcefully/illegally by the opposite parties. Since the appellant was defaulter in making payment of loan installments, as such the opposite party/company was legally justified in repossessing the vehicle and this fact is clear that prior to possession of vehicle on 15.02.2005, notices as already referred above Annexure R-1 (colly) were given to the appellant, which were sent through registered post and even no rejoinder to the version filed by the opposite parties had been filed by the complainant. Hence, there was no illegality in repossessing the vehicle by the opposite party/financing company.
11. It is settled legal position that even loan is defaulted, then the vehicle can only be repossessed through legal means and financier cannot adopt extra legal means for taking repossession of the vehicle by deploying musclemen/gundas, but there is iota of evidence on record to prove that the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the opposite parties by adopting extra legal means. There is no illegality in repossessing the vehicle by the opposite party/company as already stated hereinabove in the preceding paras of this order. Our view is supported by the judgment of National Commission given in case titled as Bajaj Auto Finance Limited versus Bhupinder Singh reported in 2006 (3) CPR 172 (NC) and a judgment of this Commission given in case titled as Jitender Singh Guleria versus ICICI Bank Limited and others in First Appeal No.254/2008, decided on 01.10.2009, wherein, it was held that in case of default of loan amount, the financier can repossess the vehicle.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, there is no force in the present appeal, as a result thereof, it is dismissed. No order as to cost. In this case, it is also evident from the record that the vehicle, in question, had now been delivered to the appellant as per order of the Fora below. However, the opposite party/company is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of due loan amount, if any against the complainant.
13. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Chander Shekhar Sharma) Presiding Member (Prem Chauhan) Member April 11, 2012.
*dinesh*