National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Surekha Khanoji Khemnar on 23 November, 2005
Equivalent citations: I(2006)CPJ46(NC)
ORDER
S.N. Kapoor, J. (Presiding Member)
1. Heard the learned Counsel at length.
2. This order is directed against an interim order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra in Appeal No. 22 of 2005 dated 5.10.2005, directing the petitioner to hand over the vehicle seized by the petitioner to the Complainant and to collect the due amount deposited with the District Forum.
3. In this matter, the dispute had arisen in between the parties on account of the fact that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant was financed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.
4. According to the finding of the District Forum on 1.7.2004 when the Complainant's vehicle was seized as per the notice given by the respondent, an amount of Rs. 33,536 was due towards the Complainant and the Complainant had not paid the instalments thereafter also. The said amount had been deposited by the Complainant in the District Forum. The respondent while taking away the vehicle had taken away the only source of income of the Complainant. The Complainant showed willingness to pay balance instalments by paying monthly amount of Rs. 5,000 after getting the custody of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the District Forum directed the respondent/opposite party to return the vehicle within 15 days and after return of the vehicle, the amount of Rs. 33,536 deposited in the District Forum was ordered to be given to the opposite party/respondent. The Complainant was also directed to pay instalments @ Rs. 5,000 per month and the respondent would not be entitled to interest or penal interest from 2.6.2004 till the date of the giving of the custody of the Complainant's vehicle. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.
5. The State Commission relied on the judgment in the case of Tarun Bhargava v. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2003 Punjab & Haryana H.C. Page 98 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, wherein it is observed that the rights of the creditor are akin to those of hypothecatee and, therefore, hypothecatee could not take possession of the security without intervention of the Court. The appellant Financier had not taken any steps for intervention of Civil Court. The State Commission directed the appellant to release the vehicle forthwith. However, the State Commission directed the Complainant to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 8,417 to the Bank. If a Financier by using his muscle power takes away the vehicle and does not want to return the vehicle even on deposit of the payment of the claimed unpaid amount and to receive it after delivery of the vehicle, it would just mean exploitation of the poor consumer who gets his vehicle financed by the Finance Company. We wish the Financier should prosper for without their prosperity finances may not be available to consumer but not like Merchant of Venice.
6. We feel that the order in question is substantially just and equitable and takes care of interest of both the parties. It is not a case where we should interfere with the impugned order for we do not see an illegality or jurisdictional error in this substantially, just and equitable order. The Revision Petition is dismissed, accordingly.