State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram Transport Finance Company ... vs Shri Sanjay Mohan Volvoikar, on 1 September, 2009
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI-GOA Present: Smt. Sandra Vaz e CorreiaPresiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member Appeal No. 50/2008 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Shop No.218/219/220, Lake Plaza View, Opposite Nehru Stadium, Fatorda, Margao, Goa. Represented by Power of Attorney Shri Rajan Naik, Branch Manager, Appellant (Original Opposite Party) v/s Shri Sanjay Mohan Volvoikar, r/o H.No.408, Tony Nagar, Sanvordem Goa. Respondent (Original Complainant) Adv. Shri S. Thanekar for the Appellant and none present at the time of order Respondent present in person Dated:01-09-2009 ORDER
[Per Smt Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1. This appeal was admitted on the limited point of award of interest on the compensation amount and the period and rate thereof. Parties filed written submissions.
2. The facts of the case have been dealt with at length in our earlier order dated 16-04-2009. We gave due consideration to the submissions of the parties. The District Forum granted interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.70000/- from the date of filing of the complaint. In our opinion, the relief granted is fair and reasonable in the facts and under the circumstances.
3. The appeal stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member 01-09-2009 ORDER This appeal was admitted on the limited point of award of interest on the compensation amount and the period and rate thereof. Parties filed written submissions.
The facts of the case have been dealt with at length in our earlier order dated 16-04-2009. We gave due consideration to the submissions of the parties. The District Forum granted interest @ 8% p.a. on the amount of Rs.70000/- from the date of filing of the complaint. In our opinion, the relief granted is fair and reasonable in the facts and under the circumstances.
The appeal stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANAJI-GOA Present:
Smt. Sandra Vaz e CorreiaPresiding Member Smt. Caroline Collasso, Member Appeal No. 50/2008 Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Shop No.218/219/220, Lake Plaza View, Opposite Nehru Stadium, Fatorda, Margoa, Goa.
Represented by Power of Attorney Shri Rajendra Naik, Branch Manager, Appellant (Original Opposite Party) v/s Shri Sanjay Mohan Volvoikar, r/o H.No.408, Tony Nagar, Sanvordem Goa.
Respondent (Original Complainant) Adv. Shri S. Thanekar for the Appellant Dated:16-04-2009 ORDER [Per Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia, Presiding Member]
1.
This appeal is taken up for admission. The appellant is the original opposite party; he is aggrieved by the order dated 31-07-2008 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) South Goa in Complaint no. 91/2005. The respondent is the original complainant.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a tipper truck in March 1999 with financial assistance of Sandeep Auto Finance Co. Ltd., and the said loan was cleared by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant required finance for engine and tinning work and approached the opposite party to advance a loan of Rs. 3,50,000/- to which the opposite party agreed. The complainant was made to enter into an agreement with the opposite party and handed over ten cheques before advancing of the loan. The opposite party did not furnish a copy of the agreement to the complainant inspite of repeated requests. The complainant was paying the installments regularly and when he approached the office of the opposite party to know about the balance due, the opposite party declined to disclose the amount. The cheques delivered by the complainant at the time of the release of the loan were not deposited by the opposite party. On 10-03-2005, without any notice of outstanding installments nor any communication whatsoever, the in-charge of the opposite party along with five to six goondas forcibly took away the complainants vehicle. The complainant rushed to the office of the opposite party were he was orally informed that he had to pay installment of Rs. 12,965/-. The complainant was informed that two installments for the months of January and February 2005 were due; the complainant then deposited an amount of Rs. 26,000/- on 12-03-2005 which was accepted by the opposite party. However, the opposite party refused to release the complainants vehicle inspite of several visits to their office, without any reason whatsoever. The complainant apprehended that the opposite party may auction and dispose his vehicle and hence thought it fit to cancel the hypothecation and clear the loan amount, which he did on 16-05-2005. The complainant alleged that his vehicle was illegally detained by the opposite party from 10-03-2005 to 15-03-2005 i.e. for 63 days without any reason thereby putting the complainant to a loss of Rs.3,78,000/- @ Rs. 6,000/- per day. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 03-09-2005 to the opposite demanding the said amount of Rs. 3,78,000/- alongwith interest @ 20% per annum. However the opposite did not comply nor reply to the notice.
3. The opposite party did not contest the complaint inspite of being duly served by the District Forum and the matter proceeded ex-parte. The complainant entered his affidavit in evidence alongwith documents.
4. The District Forum, upon considering the case of the complainant and the evidence on record, partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and cost of Rs.5,000/-.
5. The appellant assails the impugned order on certain grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. At the time of hearing we heard Shri S. Thanekar for some time.
6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant opted not to contest the complaint inspite off being duly noticed by the trial Forum. The presumption therefore is that he does not dispute the allegations made in the complaint. The complainant has categorically stated that he did not receive any communication from the opposite party regarding alleged default in payment of installments and that his vehicle was forcibly taken away by goondas hired by the opposite party on 10-03-2005. The complainant has produced a document issued by the opposite party at page C/9 of the trial court file which vindicates his claim that the vehicle was re-possessed by the opposite party on 10-03-2005. The complainant has further categorically stated that even after payment of Rs.26,000/- on 12-03-2005, his vehicle was not returned to him. The complainant has produced receipt of the said payment of Rs.26,000/- at page C/10. The complainant further claimed that the vehicle was returned to him only on 15-05-2005 after payment of the entire amount and closure of the loan account. The opposite party did not controvert the allegations through documentary evidence or otherwise. It is too late in the day for the appellant to challenge the impugned order on its merits. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to concur with the finding of the District Forum that the complainants vehicle was forcibly taken away by the opposite party with the assistance of goondas on 10-03-2005 and not returned inspite of payment of the then outstanding amount of Rs.26,000/-.
7. The modus operandi of some banks and finance companies of using muscle power against helpless debtors to forcefully seize hypothecated assets without any prior notice and extortion has been deprecated by the Honble Supreme Court and the Honble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; it has been described as a violation of human rights. Besides, this Commission, in Francis Soeiro vs. Tata Finance Ltd. Complaint no. 40/2002, awarded compensation to the consumer in similar circumstances, which order was finally upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) no. 11370/2008. The action of the appellant/opposite party to take away the complainants vehicle without any prior notice and using muscle power amounts to gross deficiency in services rendered to the complainant - consumer and a violation of his human rights. In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the award of compensation of Rs.70,000/- by the District Forum and costs of Rs.5,000/- does not call for any interference.
8. However, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the rate of interest on the compensation amount was beyond the prayer of the complainant and above the prevailing bank rate. In our view, the parties would have to be heard on this limited aspect more so on the question of whether interest is payable on awarded compensation/damages from the date of filing of the complaint.
9. In view of the above, this appeal is admitted on the limited point of award of interest on the compensation amount and the period and rate thereof.
Pronounced.
[Sandra Vaz e Correia] Member [Caroline Collasso] Member