ORDER

Respondent purchased a tractor for Rs.5 Lakhs after raising loan of Rs.3 Lakhs from the petitioner. He defaulted in paying 5^th & 6^th instalments. Since the respondent did not pay the 5^th & 6^th instalment, petitioner repossessed the tractor. Thereafter, respondent paid 5^th & 6^th instalments and requested the petitioner to release the tractor. Tractor was not released. In fact, the tractor has been sold.

Respondent filed the complaint. Petitioner entered appearance and  took  the  stand  that  the petitioner repossessed the vehicle on the

-2-

basis of a consent letter in which permission was granted to the petitioner to sell the tractor.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to release the tractor to the respondent without demanding any charges and to give three months’ time to the respondent to pay 6^th instalment. Rs.3,000/- were awarded by way of cost. It was observed that if the respondent failed to pay 6^th instalment, the petitioner could proceed in accordance with law. Opposite party No.2 was directed not to transfer the vehicle of the complainant/respondent in the name of any 3rd  person.

Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission held that since the tractor had already been sold, the relief granted by the District Forum to deliver the possession of the vehicle was not feasible and, therefore, not sustainable. State Commission affirmed the finding recorded by the District Forum that the respondent had not given his consent either for repossession or sale of the tractor. That the petitioner sold the tractor without issuing a pre-sale notice. Tractor was sold for Rs.1,90,000/-. Keeping in view the fact that the respondent had purchased the tractor for Rs.5 Lakhs and that the respondent had paid Rs.2 Lakhs out of his

-3-

own pocket, State Commission molded the relief granted by the District Forum and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent in full and final settlement in lieu of the tractor. Paras 18 & 19 of the order of the State Commission read as under:

“The appellant company had sold the vehicle to a third party whose name is not stated anywhere in the written version filed by the appellant company before the District Forum. The respondent no.1 had denied execution of the document dated 29-07-2010 on the basis of which the appellant company defended the sale transaction of the vehicle. The recitals of the document show that the matter is typed later after obtaining signature of the first respondent. The procedure not followed at the time of repossession of the vehicle seeps into the question whether the sale is valid. The matter contained in the letter dated 29-07-2010 goes to show that the appellant company demanded for payment of the amount due only after taking repossession of the vehicle. To cap it all, the “No objection certificate” issued by the appellant company denotes that there is no due from the first respondent. The appellant company issued the certificate expressing its intention that it has no objection for deletion of its name from the Hypothecation Clause in the Registration Certificate.

        According to the version of the appellant company the respondent no.1 was due an amount of Rs.1,15,609/-

-4-

after the sale proceeds of the vehicle were appropriated to the loan account of the first respondent. The vehicle was purchased on 22-10-2008 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- of which the appellant company had lent an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- on down payment of Rs.1,80,000/- by the first respondent. The appellant states that the vehicle was sold in auction for a consideration of Rs.1,90,000/- in the year,2010. The appellant company had kept the vehicle for a period of 210 days after the respondent no.1 paid the two installments amount demanded by the appellant company. The vehicle having been kept idle for such a long time would naturally loses its value and the appellant alone is responsible for the condition of the vehicle as it has neither given the possession of the vehicle to the first respondent nor did it put to sale . Even assuming that the vehicle was used by the appellant company during the period of 210 days while it was in possession of the appellant company , it cannot be sold for Rs.1,90,000/-. Taking into consideration of depreciation at 15% on the sale consideration of the vehicle, its price approximately would be Rs.3,50,000/-.. Taking into consideration of the condition of the vehicle and the lapse on the part of the appellant company , we hold the appellant company to pay an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- on all counts. The relief granted by the District Forum to deliver possession of the vehicle which has been sold to third party is not sustainable. As such the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.

-5-

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the Tractor could not be re-delivered to the respondent as the same had already been sold. Respondent had paid more than 50% of the loan amount. Respondent had also paid Rs.2 Lakhs out of his own pocket. Petitioner was deficient in rendering service as it repossessed the vehicle without issuing a prior notice and sold the same without issuing a pre-sale notice. The vehicle was sold for less than the market price. Keeping in view all these circumstances, we are of the considered view that relief granted by the State Commission is just and appropriate. No ground for interference is called for.

Dismissed.