National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sushil Kumar Deo vs Bcl Financial Services Ltd. And Anr. on 27 September, 2005
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ250(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant after taking a loan from the respondent purchased a Tata Truck. The loan was to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments, one of which was received by the respondent at the time of grant of loan. For the payment of 23 instalments, EMI was fixed @ Rs. 9,500 with regard to 22 instalments and the last instalment was to carry the balance of amount. By 31.7.2002, the appellant/complainant had paid Rs. 1,33,500 after which, unfortunately, the vehicle met with two separate accidents; since he could not pay the instalments, and the respondents already had post-dated cheques with them, and while they presented one cheque amounting to Rs. 85,560, it was not honoured by the bank. It is in these circumstances that the respondent/ complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also repossessed the vehicle. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging that the repossession was not in order and he was given no notice of the repossession. The State Commission after hearing the parties, dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at some length and find that, admittedly the outstanding amount was much more than the amount paid and for the balance amount cheque was presented. It was dishonoured. There is no disputing the fact that repossession was in terms of the hire-purchase agreement entered between the parties. As per the terms of the agreement, the respondent/ complainant was entitled to repossession of vehicle. In this case, there have been defaults and finally a dishonoured cheque, show the deficiency on the part of the appellant itself. As per terms of the agreement repossession of the vehicle was within the terms of the agreement, hence repossession of the vehicle for nonpayment of due instalment cannot be held against the respondent for being deficient in rendering service. It is also stated that the vehicle was disposed of on 'as is where is' basis for Rs. 70,000. Admittedly, the vehicle had met with the accident twice and this would not have sold for price more than that.
4. In view of above, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, which is upheld. This appeal is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.