State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Simarjit Singh Son Of Zora Singh vs Indusland Bank Limited on 16 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.11 of 2009
Date of institution: 06.01.2009
Date of decision : 16.12.2009
Simarjit Singh son of Zora Singh resident of village Bhasaur, Tehsil Dhuri,
District Sangrur.
.....Appellant
Versus
1. Indusland Bank Limited, SCO 21, Firoz Gandhi Market, Opposite
Ludhiana Stock Exchange, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager;
2. Indusland Bank Limited, 701, Solitaire Corporate Park, 167, Guru
Hargovindji Marg, Andheri East, Mumbai through its Chairman.
.....Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 04.12.2008
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Ms.Amarjit Kaur Sohi, Advocate
For the respondent : Ms.Manjit Kaur, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
Simarjit Singh appellant had purchased Ashok Leyland 4018 Tusker Turbo Truck 130 WB bearing registration No.PB13 Q 8731 in July, 2006 from Sidh Motors Private Limited, Ludhiana for a consideration of Rs.13,50,000/-. It was financed by Indusland Bank respondent No.1 (in short "the respondents"). The loan with interest was repayable in monthly instalments of Rs.35,150/-. The appellant had been making the payment of monthly instalments in cash on or before the due date. However, he could not make the payment of 3 instalments on which he received the notice dated 12.3.2008 from the respondents. Thereafter, the First Appeal No.11 of 2009 2 appellant made the payment of Rs.1,75,350/- on various dates i.e. on 24.3.2008, 6.5.2008 and 31.5.2008.
2. It was further pleaded that upto June, 2008, an amount of Rs.8,08,800/- was payable but the appellant had made the payment of Rs.8,19,380/- upto that date.
3. It was further pleaded that the said truck loaded with Timber driven by the appellant himself was proceeding from Gandhi Dham (Gujarat) to Srinagar. Due to truck strike on 3.7.2008, the said vehicle had to stay in village Bhasaur when it was on way to Srinagar. On 4.7.2008, the appellant got filled the said vehicle with diesel on payment of Rs.24,147/- and resumed the onward journey to Srinagar. When the said vehicle was proceeding from Bhasaur to Srinagar, 10 to 12 persons of the respondents came on the scene and stopped the truck. They took forcible possession of the truck from the appellant even when it was loaded with timber for the value of Rs.20 lacs. Those muscle men of the respondents also took away all the documents alongwith the truck loaded with timber. The truck was forcibly possessed by those muscle men of the respondents without any notice to the appellant and without any reason. Due to this illegal act of the respondents, the appellant could not deliver the consignment on time to its customers at Srinagar and it caused financial loss worth lacs of rupees. It also brought bad name to the business and reputation of the appellant.
4. It was further pleaded that thereafter the respondents sent letter dated 9.7.2008 to the appellant demanding certain amount more than that which had become payable. Inspite of personal visits of the appellant, the respondents failed to settle the matter and to release the vehicle. The appellant lodged the complaint with them but no attention was being paid to it by the respondents. On the other hand, they were demanding huge amount. As a result, the appellant lost the market value of the vehicle and it had caused great loss to his business. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal First Appeal No.11 of 2009 3 Forum, Sangrur (in short "the District Forum") claiming the return of the vehicle alongwith timber, compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lacs towards the financial loss and Rs.5 lacs for the mental agony and torture being caused to the appellant. Interests and costs were also prayed.
5. The respondents filed the written reply. It was not denied that the appellant had purchased Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration No.PB13 Q 8731 in July, 2006 and the said truck was financed by the respondents to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/-. It was denied if the appellant had been making the payment of instalments in time. It was pleaded that the amount was to be returned by the appellant on monthly instalments of Rs.35,150/-. The loan was sanctioned as per the terms and conditions incorporated in the loan agreement dated 22.7.2006. These terms and conditions were specifically read over to the appellant and he had signed the agreement after reading the same. The loan account No.JL004704H was opened in the books of the respondents. Darshan Singh was the guarantor. The appellant had become defaulter in October, 2007. He also failed to make the payment of instalments for the months of November, 2007 and February, 2008. The registered notice dated 12.3.2008 was sent to the appellant claiming an amount of Rs.1,39,335/- which had become due by that time. It was also denied if the amount payable upto June, 2008 was paid. It was denied if the appellant had made the payment over and above what was due.
6. It was denied if 10 to 12 persons of the respondents had stopped the truck or if they had taken forcible possession of the truck on 4.7.2008 or if the respondents had taken forcible possession of the truck without any notice or without any reason. It was also denied if the respondents had employed muscle men. This was a false story concocted by the appellant with ulterior motive.
7. It was further pleaded that the appellant had defaulted in making the payment of instalments in A/c No.JL3804H of this truck. He himself had requested the respondents that he was unable to pay the instalments due from 31.5.2008 amounting to Rs.31,354/-. Accordingly, he surrendered the vehicle with First Appeal No.11 of 2009 4 the respondents on 5.7.2008 by executing letter of surrender dated 7.7.2008. Accordingly, the respondents had taken possession of this vehicle. Even as a goodwill gesture, the respondents had written letter dated 9.7.2008 to the appellant as well as to the guarantor to deposit the full amount and to get his vehicle released.
8. It was pleaded that the appellant had taken another loan vide account No.JL004701H for Rs.8,77,000/- and he had not deposited the instalments regularly in that case also. It was further pleaded that the cheque issued by the appellant in A/c No.JL004701H to discharge his liability for the other truck was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC was filed against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana by the respondents. The present complaint has been filed by the appellant to counter the above said complaint with malafide intention.
9. It was admitted that at the time of surrender of the truck, it was loaded with Timber but the representative of the appellant namely Balwant Singh got re-loaded this Timber in another vehicle with the consent of the appellant. The appellant had also obtained all the relevant documents pertaining to this Timber. It was denied if the Timber was lying with the respondents. It was also denied that the respondents were demanding more amount than what was due. It was also denied if the appellant had visited the respondents for the release of the vehicle or if he has suffered a great loss in business. Rather the appellant was unable to deposit the instalments as per the loan agreement and he himself surrendered the vehicle. It was denied if the appellant was entitled to any compensation either for the alleged financial loss or because of any mental tension or harassment. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
10. The appellant proved documents Ex.C/1 to Ex.C/30. On the other hand, the respondents proved the documents Ex.R/1 to Ex.R/14. The respondents First Appeal No.11 of 2009 5 also filed the affidavit of Bhavik Bhardwaj as Ex.R/15. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R/16 and Ex.R/17.
11. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 4.12.2008.
12. Hence, the appeal.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2008 be set aside.
14. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
15. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
16. Admittedly, the appellant had purchased Ashok Leyland 4018 Tusker Turbo Truck 130 WB bearing No.PB13 Q 8731 in July, 2006 from M/s Sidh Motors Private Limited, Ludhiana. It was financed by the respondents to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/-. It is also not disputed that the amount was repayable by the appellant to the respondents in monthly instalments of Rs.35,150/- each. The appellant was making the payment of monthly instalments regularly.
17. It was pleaded by the appellant in para 3(b) of the complaint that he could not pay 3 instalments on schedule, on which, he received notice dated 12.3.2008 (Ex.C25) from the respondents. The respondents have also admitted in the corresponding paragraph of the written reply that the appellant had failed to make the payment of instalments for the months of October, 2007, November, 2007 and February, 2008, on which, the respondents had served the notice dated 12.3.2008 demanding from the appellant an amount of Rs.1,39,335/- which was payable by the appellant by that date.
18. It means, therefore, that upto the date of notice i.e. upto 12.03.2008, only an amount of Rs.1,39,335/- was payable even as per the version of the respondents.
First Appeal No.11 of 2009 6
19. It is also proved by the appellant that immediately, thereafter, the appellant started repaying the over due instalments and he had made the payment of Rs.1,75,350/- to the respondents on 3 different dates i.e. on 24.03.2008 (Ex.C22 for Rs.1,04,200/-), 06.05.2008 (Ex.C23 for Rs.35,150/-) and 31.05.2008 (Ex.C24 for Rs.36,000/-). These facts are not denied by the respondents. It means, therefore, that upto 31.05.2008, no instalment was over due against the appellant.
20. It was further pleaded by the appellant in the same paragraph of the complaint that upto June, 2008, a sum of Rs.8,08,800/- was payable by the appellant but he had already made the payment of Rs.8,19,380/-. Although these facts were denied generally in the written reply by the respondents and it was denied if nothing was overdue upto June, 2008 but the respondents have not produced on the file any document to show if any instalment payable upto June, 2008 was outstanding against the appellant.
21. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the said truck bearing registration No.PB13Q8731 loaded with timber was proceeding from Gandhi Dham (Gujrat) to Sri Nagar. Due to strike on 3.7.2008, the vehicle had to stay in village Bhasaur which was on way to Sri Nagar. On 4.7.2008, the truck after getting filled with diesel for an amount of Rs.24,147/- resumed its onward journey from Bhasaur to Sri Nagar. It was at this time that 10 to 12 persons of the respondents stopped the truck on the way and took its forcible possession. The value of the timber which was loaded in the truck was stated to be Rs.20 lacs. The musclemen of the respondents had taken away the truck loaded with timber along with all the necessary documents of the truck.
22. However, the respondents in the corresponding paragraph denied if 10 to 12 musclemen of the respondents stopped the truck or took forcible possession of the truck on 4.7.2008. This story was stated to be a concocted story and the version given by the respondents was that the appellant had told the respondents that he was unable to pay the instalments from 31.5.2008 amounting to Rs.31,354/- and surrendered the vehicle with the respondents on 5.7.2008. He First Appeal No.11 of 2009 7 had also executed the letter of surrender dated 7.7.2008. The respondents had written letter dated 9.7.2008 to the appellant as well as to his guarantor to deposit the remaining outstanding loan amount and to get his vehicle back.
23. When the versions of both the parties are examined, it clearly comes to light that the version of the respondents is totally false for the reasons given below.
24. The appellant had made the payment of Rs.1,75,350/- upto 31.5.2008. Therefore, nothing was payable by him against this loan upto that date. Rather, upto June, 2008, the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.8,19,880/- against the sum of Rs.8,08,800/- payable by him.
25. The respondents have not produced on the file any notice which might have been issued by them from 13.3.2008 upto 5.7.2008 like notice dated 12.3.2008 Ex.C25. If any amount had been outstanding against the appellant against this truck, the respondents must have issued notice to him. If no amount was outstanding against the appellant upto 5.7.2008, there was no reason for the appellant to surrender the vehicle and there was no reason for the respondents to re-possess the truck. By re-possessing the truck, the respondents have only used their muscle power on the appellant who was a poor borrower.
26. So far as the amount outstanding against the appellant in the other A/c No.JL004701H is concerned, the respondents were at liberty to take action against the appellant for the vehicle of that case but they had no right to re-possess the vehicle for which the loan was advanced under A/c No.JL004704H.
27. Moreover, the respondents themselves have admitted that the cheque issued by the appellant in the other account No.JL004701H was dishonoured and the respondents had already started proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the respondents had no right to recover the money of that account by re-possessing truck No.PB13-Q-8731 for which the loan was given by the respondents under A/c No.JL3804H. Therefore, if the appellant was to pay the First Appeal No.11 of 2009 8 loan in the other account, he would not have surrendered the vehicle of the different account to the respondents. It appears, therefore, that this truck was re- possessed by the respondents because the appellant had allegedly failed to pay the money in the other account. This conduct of the respondents clearly shows that the truck was re-possessed by them forcibly and was not surrendered by the appellant.
28. The version of the respondents also appears to be palpably false that the appellant had surrendered the vehicle himself as he was unable to make the payment of instalment of Rs.31,354/-. Such a frivolous and baseless plea can be taken by the respondents only to fail and not to succeed. If the appellant had the capacity to deposit an amount of Rs.1,75,350/- between the period from 12.3.2008 to 31.5.2008 then it was not difficult for him to deposit small amount of Rs.31,354/-, if at all it was outstanding against him.
29. Even if for argument's sake, the appellant was to surrender the vehicle, he would have surrendered the vehicle either in the office of the respondents or when it was lying parked in the house of the appellant himself. He would not have surrendered the vehicle when it was on its way to Srinagar and in the process of its business. The respondents by putting up this version have tried to mislead the Court with a malafide intention. This version is totally unbelievable, unreliable and liable to be rejected.
30. Even otherwise, if the vehicle was to be surrendered by the appellant to the respondents, he would have surrendered the empty vehicle when it was not loaded with any goods. How can the appellant surrender a vehicle which was loaded with timber for the value of Rs.20 lacs owned by a third party? Therefore, it is clearly proved that this vehicle was forcibly possessed by the respondents by using muscle power with high handedness. It was not less than a robbery if it was not a robbery in itself.
31. The photograph of the truck bearing registration No.PB13-Q-8731 has been proved as Ex.C/30. This clearly reveals that the truck was loaded with timber. Moreover, this fact has been admitted even by the respondents that the said First Appeal No.11 of 2009 9 truck was loaded with timber when it was allegedly surrendered by the appellant to the respondents.
32. If the respondents had been so graceful persons which they pretend to be, then they would have refused to accept the surrender of the vehicle when the truck was on its way from Bhasaur to Srinagar and when it was loaded with timber(even if the story of surrender is believed). They should have told the appellant that let the truck complete its journey and let the timber be unloaded at the place of destination and thereafter, the appellant should surrender the truck to the respondents. This also clearly reveals that it was not surrendered. It was repossession of truck by the musclemen and by use of brazen force.
33. The respondents have taken the plea that the letter of surrender dated 7.7.2008 Ex.R7 was written by the appellant to the respondents. According to this letter, the appellant wrote that "he could not pay the instalments due from 31.5.2008 amounting to Rs.71,354/- and consequently, the vehicle has been taken possession of by/surrendered to/you on 5.7.2008".
34. This letter on the face of it is false. As per the version of the respondents in the written statement, the appellant had surrendered the truck on the plea that he was unable to make the payment of instalments due from 31.5.2008 amounting to Rs.31,354/- but in the letter of surrender dated 7.7.2008, the appellant allegedly wrote that he was unable to make the payment of Rs.71,354/- due from 31.5.2008. In other words, the plea taken in the written statement by the respondents was not in consonance with the document dated 7.7.2008 (Ex.R7) proved by the respondents themselves. This also brings out a falsehood in the version of the respondents.
35. Moreover, if nothing was outstanding against the appellant against this truck upto 31.5.2008 and if the instalment was of Rs.35,150/-, the amount of Rs.71,354/- cannot fall due on 5.7.2008 i.e. only the month of June falling in between. This view also proves that the letter dated 7.7.2008 (Ex.R7) was a forged document as every falsehood leaves its traces.
First Appeal No.11 of 2009 10
36. Moreover, the wordings in the letter dated 7.7.2008 Ex.R7 is that the vehicle has been taken possession of by/surrender to/you. If the vehicle had been surrendered by the appellant himself then the words 'taken possession of' would have been deleted. These words have not been deleted by the respondents which clearly means that the possibility of vehicle having been possessed by the respondents is not ruled out even by the letter dated 7.7.2008 Ex.R7 proved by the respondents themselves.
37. No reasons have been given by the respondents as to why the letter of surrender could not be written on 5.7.2008 itself by the appellant and why they got it prepared from the appellant on 7.7.2008 Ex.R7. In any case, if it was got prepared on 7.7.2008, some reason should have been given by the respondents as to why the letter of surrender was prepared on 7.7.2008 when the truck was allegedly surrendered by the appellant on 5.7.2008. This conduct of the respondents also reveals that the story set up by them is totally false and has been invented by the respondents to cover up their own lapse.
38. Moreover, the respondents have themselves proved the letter dated 23.7.2008 Ex.R8 which was sent by M/s New Bikaner Punjab Haryana Roadlines, Gandhi Dham, Gujarat to the respondents requesting them that they had taken possession of the goods proceeding from Gandhidham to Srinagar vide truck No.PB13-Q-8731 and the truck was held by the respondents. The respondents were requested vide this letter to release their goods which were loaded in truck bearing No.PB13-Q-8731. Accordingly, the respondents released the goods which were re-loaded in the truck No.PB13-Q-8631.
39. Even according to the respondents themselves, the truck loaded with timber had come into their possession on 5.7.2008. The goods remained with them upto 23.7.2008 Ex.R8 when on the request of a third party, the goods were reloaded in another truck. But the respondents have pleaded in para 3 (c) of the written reply as if the goods were reloaded in another truck by Balwant Singh at First Appeal No.11 of 2009 11 the time of alleged surrender itself. In other words, full efforts have been made by the respondents to mislead this Court.
40. Another letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6 written by the respondents to the appellant (hirer) and to Darshan Singh (guarantor) proves an admission of the respondents themselves that they had re-possessed the truck. It reads as under : -
"Dear Sir Reg. Hire Purchase/Loan Agreement No:JL003804H We refer to the above Loan Agreement No.:JL003804H, dated..09/07/08.
We also refer to our reminder letter No.1,2,3 and our various visits to you residence/office for payment of defaulted loan instalments. Despite our best efforts, you failed to clear the defaulted amount.
Consequently, in order to recover our dues, we were constrained to repossess our asset (vehicle No.PB13- Q8731) and the same is parked in our yard.
We hereby call upon you to settle the contract in full by paying Rs.116504/- Rupees One Lakhs Sixteen thousand five hundred four only (Overdue + E.M.I + Repo charges) before (22/07/2008) and get the vehicle released. We will be glad to render all assistance to you including granting you reasonable time.
In case, you fail to settle the contract before the above mentioned date or seek extension of time as indicated above, we will be compelled to dispose off the asset in 'as is where is condition' at your costs and consequences. The sale proceeds so obtained will be adjusted to your balance outstanding and we reserve First Appeal No.11 of 2009 12 all our rights to proceeds against you to recover the balance agreement value if any."
41. It is very surprising that the letter is also written on 9.7.2008 Ex.R6 and the loan agreement was also stated to be dated 9.7.2008. What more evidence is required to prove the bad intention on the part of the respondents that they wanted to squeeze the appellant to the point of reducing him to a skeleton.
42. Moreover, it is not mentioned in the letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6 as to how much amount was outstanding against the appellant by that date. Although it is mentioned that even reminder letters No.1, 2, and 3 were sent to the appellant and even various visits were made to his residence/office but still the appellant failed to make the payment of the loan instalments. The respondents have failed to disclose in the letter as to when they had sent the demand notice to him and on what date they had sent the first reminder, on what date they had sent the second reminder and on what date they had sent the third reminder. It is also not specified in the letter as to when the visits were made by the officials of the respondents to the premises of the appellant and which official had gone to the house of the appellant. This letter, therefore, clearly shows that it was forged to justify the forcible repossession of the truck by the respondents.
43. In the letter dated 7.7.2008 Ex.R7, the story of the respondents was that the truck was surrendered by the appellant on 5.7.2008. In another document dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6, the respondents have stated that they were constrained to repossess the truck. These are two contrary versions each demolishing the other. What a contradiction? The letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6 takes the cat out of the bag.
44. It is also proved that the demands made by the respondents were arbitrary and far from the truth. For example, letter dated 12.3.2008 Ex.C25 reveals that only three instalments of Rs.35,150/- were over due, the value of which comes to Rs.1,05,450/- but the respondents had demanded an amount of Rs.1,39,335/-. It is not explained as to how they had calculated the amount of Rs.1,39,335/- when they had admitted in the written statement that only three First Appeal No.11 of 2009 13 instalments for the months of October, 2007, November, 2007 and February, 2008 were outstanding against the appellant. The respondents being the financiers feel at liberty to incorporate any amount in the demand notice arbitrarily and they do not feel any necessity to justify the amount or to give the details of the amount demanded.
45. Similarly, in the letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6, the respondents have pleaded that the amount of Rs.1,16,504/- was outstanding against the appellant and the respondents desired the appellant to deposit that amount before 22.7.2008 to get the vehicle released. However, the details of this amount were not disclosed in the letter. If nothing amount was outstanding against the appellant upto 31.5.2008 how the amount of Rs.1,16,504/- came to be outstanding against the appellant upto 9.7.2008 when the amount of instalment was only Rs.35,150/- even as per the respondents as pleaded by them in the written statement. Therefore, the demand was totally illegal and totally uncalled for.
46. Also look at it from another angle. As per the written statement, the appellant had surrendered the vehicle as he was unable to pay one instalment of Rs.31,354/-. As per the letter dated 7.7.2008 (alleged letter of surrender), he was unable to pay Rs.71,354/- which was outstanding against him. Two days later i.e. on 9.7.2008 (Ex.R6), a sum of Rs.1,16,504/- was outstanding against the appellant. So much arbitrariness and falsehood in the dealings and business of the respondents?
47. As discussed above, in the letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6, the respondents have clearly admitted that they were constrained to re-possess truck No.PB13-Q-8731 which was now lying parked in their yard. This admission of the respondents in the letter dated 9.7.2008 Ex.R6 clearly falsifies the version of the respondents that the truck was voluntarily surrendered by the appellant to the respondents on 5.7.2008. This, therefore, clearly reveals that the truck was forcibly re-possessed by the appellant which was totally an illegal act on the part of the respondents.
First Appeal No.11 of 2009 14
48. It was held by this Commission in the judgment reported as "Standard Chartered Bank v. H.S.Saini" 2009 CTJ 324 on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that re-possession of the vehicle with the use of force by the financiers is never legal. It was held by this Commission as under : -
"13. In this context, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission reported as "Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S.Vijayalaxmi" 2007 CTJ 1145 (CP)-III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) in which it has been held as under : -
1. When a vehicle is purchased by a person (consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker, the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/banker, unless the ownership is transferred.
2. In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced, by use of force.
3. Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to repossess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of 'instant justice' cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise, it would result in anarchy that too when the borrower retorts and uses the force.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as "ICICI Bank v. Prakash Kaur & ors." (2007) 2 SCC 711 has clearly depicted the hapless condition of the borrower which is misused by the financiers. Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-
Now the bank is the aggressor and the public is the victim. The first step to recovery of the money due is through the so called Recovery Collection Agents. A very dignified term used for paid recovery agents who are individuals and independent contractors hired by the Banks to trace the defaulters and to both physically, First Appeal No.11 of 2009 15 mentally and emotionally torture and force them into submitting their dues.
A man's self respect, stature in society are all immaterial to the agent who is only primed at recovery. This is the modernized version of Shylock's pound of flesh. No explanation is given regarding the interest charge and the bank takes cover under the guise of the holder of the card or loan having signed the agreement whose fine print is never read or explained to the owner."
49. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the Hon'ble National Commission, reproduced above, is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.
50. Moreover, the truck was re-sold by the respondents on 31.3.2000. No details have been given about the sale proceeds of the truck. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is clearly proved by repossessing the truck forcibly and selling the same without disclosing the details of the sale. Such acts deserved to be condemned and punished severally.
51. In view of the above discussions, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2008 is set aside. The respondents are held liable to pay the value of the truck to the appellant. It was purchased in July, 2006 for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. It was repossessed on 5.7.2008. Its depreciation is taken to be 10% per year, it comes to 20% of the total value of the truck. If 20% is reduced out of Rs.13,50,000/-, the balance amount comes to Rs.10,80,000/-. Accordingly, the respondents are held liable to make the payment of Rs.10.80 lacs to the appellant towards the value of the truck.
52. The appellant has suffered mental tension, agony, loss of reputation and physical harassment. Therefore, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as claimed by him, although he deserved much more than that.
53. His business has also suffered as he remained deprived of the use of his truck and, therefore, the respondents are held liable to pay a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as claimed by the appellant.
First Appeal No.11 of 2009 16
54. The respondents would, however, be entitled to adjust the outstanding instalments of the truck as on 1.6.2008 upto which date nothing was overdue. The respondents must adjust only the amount of instalments but they should not increase the amount arbitrarily.
55. The appellant shall also have the costs of Rs.20,000/-.
56. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 03.12.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
57. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER December 16, 2009.
Paritosh