Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 425 of 2018

Radhey Shyam Prajapati s/o Sri Ghurey Prajapati,

R/o Sukrat, Tehsil, Robertsganj, District,

Sonebhadra.                                                         ....Appellant.

Versus

1- Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment

    & Finance Company Ltd., near HDFC Bank,

    Robertsganj, Sonebhadra.

2- Area Manager, Cholamandalam Investment

    & Finance Company Ltd., Branch near HDFC

    Bank, Robertsganj, Sonebhadra.

3- Manager, Shiva Motors Parking Yard, Karipur,

    Ram Nagar, Varanasi.                                  ..Respondents.

Before:

1- Hon’ble Mr. Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Mr. Vikas Saxena, Member.

Sri Ravi Kumar Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.

Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondents.

Dated : 13.3.2024

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2017 passed by Ld. District Consumer Forum, Sonebhadra in complaint case no.16 of 2017, Radhey Shyam Prajapati vs. Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. & ors.    

          The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment and order of the ld. District Forum is arbitrary, against the facts and evidence of the case. The learned District Forum erred in not considering the fact that the appellant/complainant has purchased a new TRAX

CRUISER (Omni Bus) from Kritika Motors, Robertsganj on 02.08.2016 which was financed by respondents no.1 & 2, finance company and appellant paid regular installments of the financed vehicle to the respondent no.1 & 2 but due to his poor economic condition the appellant could not pay the installments due in the month of November and December, 2016 and in this regard the appellant asked the officials of finance company to give some time but the respondent no.1 & 2 with the help of musclemen illegally repossessed the vehicle of the appellant on 17.01.2017 without giving any prior notice in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments.

          The learned District Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint case of the appellant for want of jurisdiction by observing in the impugned judgment that the respondent no. 1 & 2 finance company has not committed any deficiency in service ignoring the material fact and law that the finance company has forcefully repossessed the vehicle without prior notice and also the appellant had purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and not for commercial purpose.

          The learned District Forum has erred in not considering the fact that the appellant is the consumer of the respondents and his case was maintainable before it and it has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Hence it is most humbly prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside.

          We have heard Sri Ravi Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for the Respondents.

          We have perused the impugned judgment, pleadings, evidences and arguments on record.

          In this case, the complainant took a loan from the opposite parties and the installments of loan was fixed Rs.19,160.00 per month. As per the complainant, he could not deposit the installment, therefore, his Omni Bus was seized by the opposite parties.

          The opposite party has stated that a loan of Rs.6,68,000.00 was granted to the complainant which was to be paid in 47 installments of Rs.19,160.00 per months. The complainant has deposited only 3 installments and to avoid the recovery of loan, he has filed this complaint case.

          So, it is clear that the complainant is defaulter in this case and he has not deposited the installments of the loan in time. Therefore, financer has right to seize the vehicle and in this case it has been done. The complainant has paid only Rs.48,330.00 as against Rs.6,68,000.00, so the complainant has no legal stand to file a case. The ld. District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint case which is upto the mart and needs no interference by this court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.  

ORDER 

             The appeal is dismissed.

            The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at the earliest.

          Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.      

        (Vikas Saxena)                           (Rajendra Kumar)

             Member                                  Presiding Member

Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.

Consign to record.

       (Vikas Saxena)                              (Rajendra Singh)

            Member                                   Presiding Member

Dated  13.3.2024

Jafri, PA I

Court 2