BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.110 of 2015 Date of Institution : 04.06.2015
Date of Decision : 12.1.2017.
Sita Ram aged about 30 years son of Shri Rameshwar, resident of village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- The Branch Manager/ Authorized Signatory, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Red Light Square, Dabwali Road, Opp. Town Park, Salasar Dham, Lal Batti Chowk, Sirsa.
- Authorized Signatory Registered office, Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. (CIFCL), Dare House, First Floor, 2, NSC Bose Road, Chennai- 600001.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Anil Beniwal, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Mukesh Saini, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that in the month of June, 2012 the complainant purchased a second hand Alto LX BS 3 car bearing registration No. HR-22E-9195 from its registered owner Ram Niwas and after getting transferred it in his own name from Registering Authority, Sirsa, he got the same financed from opposite party no.1. The vehicle was purchased by complainant to use the same as a Taxi. The complainant started using the same as a taxi with a daily income of Rs.1000/- for earning his livelihood. The complainant has been paying the finance amount in installments regularly without any fault to op no.1 and from the month of September, 2012 to March, 2015 even a single installment was not due against the complainant nor he was declared defaulter in making the payment of installments. On 24.3.2015, the aforesaid financed vehicle of complainant was parked in the Taxi Stand and to the surprise of complainant, the officials of op no.1 came there and forcibly snatched the vehicle and took away the same. The complainant asked the reason of the same on which they stated that same was being taken away under the orders of op no.1. Then he immediately visited office of op no.1 and tried to ascertain the cause behind forcible snatching of vehicle and also requested to hand over the possession of vehicle to him. On this, it was brought to his knowledge that on account of non payment and irregular payment of installments, his vehicle has been taken into possession by them. He was surprised to hear this. The complainant told them that not even a single installment is due against him up to March, 2015 but op no.1 refused to hand over the possession of vehicle to him and asked him to produce the receipts regarding payment of installments. The complainant produced the copies of receipts upto month of March, 2015 but despite that op no.1 did not hand over the vehicle to him on the pretext of updating their record as per the receipts and asked him to come after a period of one week. The complainant accordingly visited office of op no.1 after seven days and requested to hand over the possession of vehicle but ops kept on compelling him to make rounds and rounds to their office. Since 24.3.2015 the vehicle is in unauthorized possession of op no.1 and complainant has suffered business loss of Rs.50,000/-. Not only this, the complainant used to hire alternate vehicle at the rate of Rs.1000/- per day to avoid the loss. The complainant also sent legal notice on 15.4.2015 to the ops but same has been returned as unserved. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; jurisdiction, suppression of material facts; cause of action; locus standi and limitation etc. It has been further submitted that complainant approached the ops for advancement of loan of Rs.1,40,000/- for second hand alto car. The ops accepted the loan application and an agreement was effected between the parties and complainant agreed to repay the loan amount alongwith flat interest rate of 8.85% per month in installment of Rs.5062/-. The complainant himself has admitted that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. It is complainant who made habitual default in repayment of loan amount from first installment and not even a single installment was paid within time. The ops always act as per the term and condition of agreement which had been signed by both parties with their free will and consent. It is also submitted that vehicle was repossessed by way of surrender and ops never acted against agreement. It is wrong that ops snatched the vehicle forcibly. The complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to ops because he purchased another one which has been also financed by ops and complainant was not in the condition to pay installment of two vehicles. The vehicle in question was sold by the ops and the amount was adjusted in the loan account of complainant. Now, the complainant to harass and blackmail the ops made a false story. It has been also submitted that no cause of action arose at Sirsa. As per clause 29 of loan agreement only the Courts in Chennai shall have jurisdiction for the purpose of settling dispute. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. By way of evidence, complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of ration card Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, registered letter Ex.C5, acknowledgment Ex.C6, statement of account Ex.C7, copy of payment receipt Ex.C8, copy of certificate of registration Ex.C9, affidavit of Sh. Vijay Kumar Ex.C10. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Gourav Sharma Ex.R1,copy of schedule of agreement Ex.R2, copy of statement of account Ex.R3, copy of loan form Ex.R4 and copy of loan agreement Ex.R5.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments of the complaint has contended that even no notice for taking possession of the vehicle was given to the complainant by the opposite parties. Although there was no default on the part of complainant to make payment of installment in time to the ops and even for the sake of argument it is accepted that there was default for any reason in making payment of installments, the vehicle should be given back to complainant after accepting the pending amount till date but the opposite parties have sold the vehicle of the complainant and have caused financial loss and harassment to him. In support, he has relied upon observations of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Gurdeep Singh Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. 2016 (3) CLT 51 and Parteek Finance Company Vs. Jasbir Singh and anr. 2015 (1) CPJ 454.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties while reiterating the averments of the written statement has contended that there is no evidence on file that vehicle in question was forcibly snatched from the complainant rather complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to the ops as he was unable to pay installments of two vehicle. He has further contended that despite that complainant himself surrendered the vehicle in question to the ops even then he was given a notice to pay the outstanding amount otherwise steps to initiate sale of the vehicle will be taken and in this regard he has placed on file copy of letter dated 24.3.2015 at the time of arguments. He has further contended that as it is own case of the complainant that car was being used by him as a taxi i.e. for commercial purpose, so complaint is not maintainable in this forum and has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission in cases titled as Sakthi Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Sri Krishna Car Rope Industry, 2001 (3) ALT 8 and Suresh Baban Gadekar Vs. ICICI Bank & ors. II (2013) CPJ 474 (NC).
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In so far as contention of the opposite parties regarding non maintainability of the present complaint before this Forum on the ground of commercial purpose is concerned, the complainant in his complaint has asserted that vehicle was in question was being plied by him as a taxi for earning his livelihood and we see substance in the assertion of the complainant in this regard and therefore, complaint is maintainable before this Forum.
8. Now we come to the merits of the case. There is no reliable and cogent evidence on file to show that vehicle in question was forcibly snatched by the opposite parties from the taxi stand. The complainant has not placed on file affidavit of a single person/ owner of taxi to corroborate his version. The complainant has placed on file affidavit of one Vijay Kumar who is also resident of same village i.e. Jamal to which complainant belongs and therefore, he may be an interested witness. The opposite parties have asserted that complainant himself surrendered the vehicle to them because he purchased another a new vehicle which was also financed by them and complainant was not in position to pay installment of two vehicles. The complainant has not refuted the said plea of the opposite parties and therefore, we see substance in the plea of the opposite parties. Moreover, at the time of arguments the opposite parties have placed on file copy of pre sale letter to the customer dated 24.3.2015 written to the complainant informing him to pay the outstanding finance amount and other charges otherwise they will take steps to sell the car in question. So, we see no merit in the present complaint.
9. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:12.1.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
