State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avtar Singh vs Indusind Bank Limited & Anr on 28 May, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 07/2011 Date of Decision: 28.05.2012. Avtar Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh, R/O Village & P.O. Nerchowk, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. Appellant Versus 1. Indusind Bank Limited, (Vehicle Finance Division) Floor, CF-23-24, Phase III, B-2, Mohali-160059. 2. Ashoka Leyland Finance Ltd. (A Division of Indusind Bank Ltd.) SCO 53-54, Ist Floor, Sector 8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Appellant: Mr. Akhilesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents has been dismissed.
2. Appellant purchased a truck by raising loan from respondent No.1. Truck was purchased from respondent No.2. Since, the truck was purchased by raising loan from respondent No.1, a hire purchase agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent No.1. Appellant was to repay loan in 46 monthly instalments of `19,775/- each. Total amount of loan was `7.75 lac. Agreement was executed on 20th March, 2006. Appellant could not pay the instalments in terms of the agreement as according to him his vehicle got stranded in Leh area due to heavy snow fall and because of that appellant could not earn any money by plying it. Respondent No.1 is alleged to have forcibly repossessed the truck on 05.07.2007, when it was parked at Nerchowk, the native place of the appellant. Within a few days of the alleged forcible repossession of the truck, appellant received a notice Annexure-12, calling upon him to pay a sum of `1,72,201/-, by 27.07.2007, failing which the truck was to be sold and the sale proceeds adjusted against his liability arising out of loan agreement. Ultimately, the truck was sold for `4.00 lac.
3. Appellant filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on 06.07.2009, or say two years after the alleged forcible repossession seeking damages.
4. Complaint was contested by respondent No.1 and it was stated that vehicle had been surrendered by the appellant himself at Chandigarh. Jurisdiction of the Forum to adjudicate the complaint was questioned. Complaint was stated to be barred by time. Leaned District Forum accepted all the three pleas of the respondent and dismissed the complaint.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Learned District Forum has observed that the transaction regarding purchase of truck and the raising of loan had taken place at Jalandhar and thus no part of the cause of action took place within its jurisdiction. Respondents were held to have had their places of work outside the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum and on this score also, the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum was observed to be excluded.
7. In this case what was complained by the appellant was that his vehicle has been forcibly repossessed by respondent No.1 at Nerchowk, a place within the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. It was this alleged illegal act of respondent No.1, which was complained against, as an act of deficiency in service, and since this act had been committed within the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum, it cannot be said that the learned District Forum did not have the jurisdiction in the matter.
8. As regards the plea of limitation, the vehicle was alleged to have been forcibly repossessed on 05.07.2007. Limitation of two years was to expire on 05.07.2009, because the date of alleged repossession was to be excluded, while counting limitation. 05.07.2009, on which the limitation expired was a Sunday. So, the complaint could have legally been filed on 06.07.2009, on which date it was actually filed. Therefore, issue of limitation raised by the respondent could also not have been accepted.
9. As regards respondents plea that the vehicle had been surrendered by the appellant himself at Chandigarh on 02.07.2007, notice, copy Annexure -12, issued by respondent No.1 itself belies this plea. This notice is dated 12.07.2007. Not only that it is not stated in the notice that the vehicle had been surrendered, but it is very categorically stated that the respondent was constrained to repossess the vehicle because of default made by the appellant in payment of instalments. Now, when the respondents in the said notice itself has stated that it had been constrained to repossess the vehicle, how can its plea of voluntarily surrender of vehicle by the appellant be accepted.
10. As a result of the above stated position, we hold that the vehicle was repossessed by respondent No.1, without following the legal procedure and therefore, its act amounts to deficiency in service.
11. Coming to the question of quantum of damages, loan was taken in the month of March, 2006. It was to be repaid in 46 monthly instalments of `19,775/-. By July 2007, appellant defaulted in respect of several instalments and a sum of `1,72,201/- was due from him, as indicated in Annexure-12. Looking to the fact that appellant had made default in payment of a large number of instalments in the very first year and did not pay the money due despite service of notice, Annexure-12, we are of the considered view that a sum of `50,000/-, should be a reasonable amount of compensation for the illegal repossession of the vehicle and its sale.
12. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose, & therefore the appellant is not a consumer. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Learned District Forum has rejected this plea of the respondent and it (the respondent) has not filed any appeal to assail this finding.
13. As a result of the above discussion, appeal is allowed, impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint, as filed by the appellant, is allowed and respondent No.1 is ordered to pay a sum of `50,000/-, as compensation and also to pay `5,000/-, as litigation expenses of the complaint, as also the present appeal. It is ordered that in case the aforesaid amount of `50,000/- is not paid within one month from today (order has been dictated in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondents and therefore this period of 30 days is ordered to be counted from today and not from the date of the receipt of this order by the said respondents), interest at the rate of 9% per annum, shall be payable from the date of this order upto the date of the payment of the aforesaid amount of money.
14. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member May 28, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?