26-08-14 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the ordersheet.

1.       Heard the parties on the prayer for condoning the delay in filing this appeal. 

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he delay of 77 days may be condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the delay is of about 104 days and there is no explanations for the delay.

          It is true that the explanations of the delay is not satisfactory. It is said that due to internal office procedure in the appellant/company there was delay. The explanation is also vague and general.

          However, in the interest of justice the delay is condoned on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant/Respondent.

2.       Heard the parties on merits. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds whereas learned counsel for the respondents supported it.

3.       The learned Lower Forum has interalia held that despite realization of delay payment charge, the vehicle in question was repossessed thrice for which repossession charges were also realized, and only for the alleged non-payment of Rs. 9,542/- the vehicle was repossessed without following the procedure in that regard. Then it  was allegedly auction sold, without following the procedure in that behalf and without, intimating the complainant, about the date of auction.  Further the date of auction and the price at which it was sold and to whom it was sold has also not been disclosed by the appellant.  The appellant even did not pay for the insurance of the vehicle for three consecutive years, inspite of realizing the amount of premium. 

4.       After hearing the parties and going through the records, we do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of the learned Lower Forum, which has been arrived, after due consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the materials brought on the record by them. The actions of the appellant appears to be highly illegal and arbitrary.

5.       However, the operative portion of the judgment under appeal appears to us as unexecutable, so far as the appellant was directed to handover a “New Tata Spacio Gold vehicle of the same make and Model”.

6.       Therefore, we are calculating the value of the vehicle when it was repossessed on 08.07.2010 as follows.

Undisputedly, the value of the vehicle was Rs. 4,65,393/- when it was hire purchased by the complainant in September 2006. 

Price in September 2006                   -  Rs. 4,65,393 = 00

Less Depreciation @ 15%                 -  Rs.    69,809 = 00

Value in Sep. 2007                           =  Rs. 3,95,584 = 00

Less Dep. 15%                                  -   Rs.    59,337 = 00

Value in Sep. 2008                           =  Rs. 3,36,247 = 00

Less Dep. 15%                                           -    Rs.   50, 437 = 00

Value of Sep. 2009                                     =   Rs. 2,85,810 = 00

Less Dep. 15%                                    

up to July 2010 = 9 months.             =  Rs.     32,153 = 00

Value on 08.07.2010.                       =  Rs.  2,53,657 = 00

7.       Thus the claimant is entitled to the value of the vehicle, when it was repossed on 08.07.2010 which would be about Rs. 2,53,657/- + Rs. 39,000/= being three years insurance amount realized by the appellant, + Rs. 15,000/= compensation + Rs. 5000/- litigation cost + Rs. 2000/- cost for condoning the delay in filing this appeal, total Rs. 3,14,657/=.  The appellant is directed to pay Rs. 3,14,657/= to the complainant/Respondent within 30 days of this order, failing which the appellant will also be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of this order till payment/realization.

With this modification in the operative portion of the judgment under appeal, this appeal is disposed off. 

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,    

Dated: 26.08.2014