National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. vs Smt. Sashi Bala & Ors. on 25 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 902 OF 2013 (Against the order dated 29.11.2012 in RP No.62/2012 of the State Commission, Haryana) M/s. Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Office at Himalya House, UGF, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg New Delhi .Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sashi Bala, W/o Sh. Baldev Raj R/o Vill. Hasanpura, Tehsil Bawal, Distt. Rewari, Haryana 2. M/s. Sanghi Hire Purchase Ltd. B-13/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Through its Director 3. M/s. Sanghi Hire Purchase Ltd. Branch office, Rewari, Through its Manager 4. M/s. M.G. Motors Opp- PWD rest House, Garhi Bolni Road, 126-L, Model Town, Rewari, Haryana .........Respondents BEFORE HONBLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 25 April 2013 ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, PRESIDING MEMBER The matter in this revision petition arises from the decision of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari in the complaint filed by Smt. Sashi Bala. The District Forum allowed the complaint in the following terms:-
In view of the aforesaid proposition of law the action of the respondents taking possession of the vehicle without the intervention of the courts established by law not only comes within the purview of deficiency in service but also attracts criminal liability to some extent. Repossession has been strongly deprecated if done without taking legal recourse by Honble Supreme Court in aforesaid cases but, even then the financial institutions are not adhering to the rule of law which is inherent within the Constitution of India. It is enacted to maintain the rule of law but in the instant case we fail to understand that even in the 21st century no notice prior to taking repossession and auction of the vehicle in question has been given to the complainant.
Thus, entire act of the respondents is in contravention of the well established provisions of law as well as principles of natural justice thus, taking into consideration that there is glaring deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and their act has rendered the complainant virtually an unemployed person who otherwise was feeding her family with the help of the income of the vehicle. Thus, this is a fit case where we are compelled to issue directions under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act to re-deliver the vehicle in question to the complainant and reschedule the repayment schedule. Respondents shall not be entitled to any interest for the time the vehicle remained in their possession. If the vehicle has been re-sold and the same cannot be delivered to the complainant in that case the respondents no.1 to 3 are directed to pay the entire amount received from the complainant coupled with the margin money less depreciation @ 10% along with interest @ 9% w.e.f. date of repossession. Complainant is also entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.If the respondents are not in a position to re-deliver the vehicle.
Thus, complaint stands allowed as aforesaid. File be consigned to the record room after the compliance.
2. OP-1/Citicorp Finance (I) Ltd. challenge the above order before the State Commission , which was dismissed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with the observation:-
Compliance being sought, ops came up with the plea that the depreciation should have been allowed per year as per their terms. Since in the order the depreciation allowed is only 10%, Ops cannot introduce the word per year. There is no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum.
3. The revision petition now filed by M/s.
Citicorp Finance India Ltd is to be seen in the above background. The contention of the revision petitioner is that depreciation should have been allowed on year to year basis. We have perused the records and heard Mr. Avinash Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioner. Neither the revision petition nor the counsel have made any attempt to explain the justification placed in this behalf before the District Forum, which has already noted deduction of only 10% from the total amount received by the petitioner from the Complainant together with margin money. Therefore, the State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that the attempt of the OP to introduce the word per year in depreciation cannot be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner confined his arguments to the fact that the loan for purchase of this vehicle was to be repaid in 33 instalments between August, 2004 and April, 2007. This argument can find no legs to stand on when no case was pleaded before the District Forum for year-on-year deduction of depreciation.
5. In view of the above, it is held that the revision petition is without any merit. It has obviously been filed only to delay the payment of the rightful claim of the respondent/Complainant and waste the time of this Commission in frivolous proceedings. The revision petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit with punitive cost of Rs.10,000/-. The same shall be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government in terms of the provisions in Rule 10-A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987.
This amount shall be paid within a period of two months, failing which it will carry interest at 11% p.a for the period of delay.
.Sd/-
(VINAY KUMAR) PRESIDING MEMBER s./-