State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Joginder Pal Malhotra vs Deepak Mittal on 23 October, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.482 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 14.03.2011.
Date of Decision: 23.10.2012.
Joginder Pal Malhotra S/o Sh. Padam Nath, Resident of House No.31, Ekta
Nagar, Icche Wala Road, near Church, Ferozepur City.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Deepak Mittal, Managing Director, International Autorac Finance
Limited, Village Chak Gujaran, Post Office Piplanwala, Jalandhar
Road, Hoshiarpur-146022.
2. Shivalik Automobiles, Village Dune Ke, G.T. Road, Moga, through its
Proprietor Neeraj Garg.
3. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Khiali Ram, Resident of House No.92, Street No.1,
Azad Nagar, Ferozepur City.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
02.02.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. Joginder Pal Malhotra, appellant in person.
Sh. H.S. Hundal, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.1. Sh. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------
BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER:-
Sh. Joginder Pal Malhotra, appellant (In short "the appellant") has filed this appeal against the order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short "the District Forum"), vide which the application filed by the appellant for registration of FIR against the respondents was dismissed. First Appeal No.482 of 2011 2
2. It was submitted that the applicant purchased a Rhino R3 DLX Diesel Car from respondent no.2 on 11.10.2007. The said vehicle was purchased after paying one advance EMI along with old car and the remaining amount was got financed through respondent no.2 by respondent no.1. The appellant demanded the statement of outstanding loan amount, but respondent no.1 failed to provide the same.
3. In the month of August, 2009, employees of respondents no.1 & 2 snatched the vehicle in the area of village Sham Singh Wala, P.S. Mamdot on the ground that remaining installments have not been paid. The appellant filed the complaint before the District Forum which was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2010 and respondent no.1 was directed to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- as remaining amount along with interest @ 7% p.a. from 14.08.2009 till realization and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
4. The District Forum made certain observations in Paras-7, 9 and 10, which are reproduced below:-
"7. Admittedly, the vehicle has been taken over by opposite party No.1 from the complainant. DDR dated 16.8.2009 regarding the above said fact has also been lodged by the complainant with the police authorities. As per the said DDR, the vehicle was snatched by the employees of opposite party No.1 from opposite party No.3 in the area of Village Sham Singh Wala, Police Station Mamdot, Tehsil and District Ferozepur".
"9. There is no document on the file from which it can be gathered that the vehicle was actually surrendered by the complainant to opposite party No.1. Out of the loan amount of Rs.5,93,655/- and interest accrued there upon, only a sum of Rs.1,69,700/- was balance towards the complainant, as per the own written reply of opposite party No.1. In the said amount of Rs.1,69,700/-, certain penalties, penal interest etc. have also been included. No sane man would surrender the vehicle to the financer, when most of the amount has been paid to First Appeal No.482 of 2011 3 the financer and only a small amount remains balance, especially, when the person is using the vehicle for earning his livelihood. So it is proved beyond doubt that the vehicle has been forcibly snatched by the employees of opposite party No.1 from the complainant".
"10. There was an agreement executed by the complainant with opposite party No.1 giving opposite party No.1 the right to repossess the vehicle by way of using the force, the copy of the said document has been placed on the file as Ex.R-3. A perusal of the said loan agreement shows that only the signatures of the complainant and guarantor of the complainant have been taken by opposite party No.1 on the said agreement, but any official of opposite party No.1 has not signed the said agreement, which means that the said agreement never stood completed. Even the columns of First Schedule and the Second Schedule, attached with the agreement, have been left blank, which reveals that opposite party No.1 had obtained signatures of the complainant and guarantor on blank printed forms. Even the column, as to the date of execution, has also been left blank. It seems that officials of opposite party No.1 forget to sign the said agreement and fill in the blanks. The said agreement is not a valid or genuine agreement in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, under Clause No.15 of the agreement pertaining to the Lender's Rights, a right has been given to the lender to repossess the vehicle forcible by entering into the premises of the complainant and to break open such place, where the vehicle is lying parked. The forcible snatching of the vehicle or forcible entry into the premises of a person and further the breaking of the premises of a person without his consent, amounts to criminal act. An agreement against the provisions of law is termed as an illegal agreement, which is to be treated as non-est and cannot be allowed to be enforced".First Appeal No.482 of 2011 4
5. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the respondents connived with each other and put the appellant to loss of huge amount. The respondents manipulated and tampered the court documents by filling the gaps of Ist Schedule and have appended the date of execution of agreement which differs from the date of registration at Jalandhar and also made wrong statements and produced the fake documents i.e. the notices to the appellant as the Ist notice dated 29.11.2008 Ex.R-6 and 2nd notice dated 10.09.2008 Ex.R-5 was sent earlier during the proceedings of the Forum.
6. It was prayed that the case may be got registered against the respondents.
7. The District Forum vide the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 observed that there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act under which a direction can be issued to the police authorities for registration of FIR. No purgery or tampering of the documents has been committed by the respondents before the Forum. If the respondents have forged some documents after the decision of the present complaint, that in no way gives any entitlement to the appellant to move the Forum for registration of the case. No tampering or forgery is alleged to be committed by the respondents with the documents of the court file. If the respondents have later on forged some documents, the appellant has independent remedy of initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents, but he cannot use the platform of the Forum for the said purpose, and dismissed the application.
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.02.2011, the appellant has come up in appeal.
9. We have gone through the pleadings of the application as well as appeal, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the appellant, who is present in person, as well as by the learned counsel for respondents no.1 & 2.
10. The application is vague and frivolous and has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum. Under the provisions of Criminal Procedure First Appeal No.482 of 2011 5 Code, under Section 195 and Section 340 Cr.P.C., there is a provision that a court can lodge a complaint for initiating criminal proceedings, in case any of the offences as mentioned in Section 195 Cr. P.C. are committed during the proceedings of the case. The deciding court has also to give findings about the purgery or forgery committed by the person, against whom the complaint can be lodged. In the present case, no such finding was returned by the District Forum regarding the commission of any purgery or tampering of the documents and, as such, no complaint can be lodged by the court. One of the essential ingredients for lodging the complaint is that it is expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint, but in the present case there is nothing such. The parties are litigating and the decision has gone in favour of the appellant and in the appeal also, we have considered the entire material and evidence on record and have given option to the appellant either to pay the amount and have the vehicle in question in his possession or to pay the balance amount due towards him. The facts mentioned in above Paras also do not justify lodging of complaint or FIR. This application for lodging an FIR is not, at all, maintainable and the same has been rightly dismissed.
11. In view of above discussion, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed and the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
12. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 11.10.2012 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member October 23, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)