BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No.36 of 2014
Sri Monoranjan Das, ……………………………………………………. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Co. Ltd.
3rd Floor, N.S Avenue (beside Deb Tyres), Silchar, P.S- Silchar,
Dist- Cachar, Assam. O.P No.1.
2. Regional Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Co. Ltd.
C/O Prag Complex, Beltola Tiniali, Guwahati, Assam-781028. O.P.No.2.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Mr. Ajoy Kumar Choudhury, Advocate for the Complainant.
Mr. Nalinendu Nag & Mr. Kishan Hazam, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 30-06-2017
Date of written argument……………… 04-01-2018, 16-02-2018
Date of Argument……………………… 12-03-2018
Date of judgment………………………. 29-03-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This case has been brought by Sri Monoranjan Das under Consumer Protection Act 1986 against Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Company Ltd., Silchar and another for award of Price of his vehicle (including interest) of Rs.3,70,260/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceeding.
- He stated inter alia as below:-
He purchased APC Truck Plus bearing Regd.No.AS 11 AC-4803 on financial Aid of Rs.2,50,000 from O.Ps vide agreement No.ASGWSL000041 dated 29/09/2011. As per agreement loan amount with interest at the rate of 11% per annum to be repaid on 35 EMI of Rs.10,500/- each. Accordingly, on making down payment of Rs.79,370 he took the vehicle and regularly paying the EMI to the O.Ps. Sri. Debojit Das used to receive the EMI in each occasion on behalf of the O.P. because he was executive of the O.P. but he did not issue receipts for EMI. Anyhow, on 25/08/2012 the O.Ps repossessed the vehicle and on 27/08/2012 he received a letter from the O.P. that the O.P. declared him defaulter of payment of Rs.2,12,671/- for which the vehicle was re-possessed. On 03/10/2012 received a letter from O.P.No.2. In that letter stating inter alia that apart from auction the vehicle, legal action shall be taken against him if fail to pay the entire loan amount.
- Thus, the instant complaint brought against the O.Ps for their illegal action, disservice and harassment etc.
- The O.Ps submitted their joint W/S supporting affidavit. In the W/S denied the allegation of illegal action, harassment etc. The O.Ps stated inter alia that the Complainant took the vehicle under loan/finance from the O.Ps and subsequently defaulted in payment of Installment, for that reason the O.Ps after observing all formalities as per hire purchase agreement No.ASGWSL000041 finally re-possessed the vehicle and subsequently sold it on auction but still now the complainant has liability to pay Rs.3,28,000/-.
- During hearing, the Complainant deposed as PW and exhibited same receipts of EMI and also exhibited repossession, vehicle inventory list, some letter regarding information of outstanding dues, Insurance policy, R/C etc. The Complainant also examined Sri. Bishnu Singha, the guarantor of the loan as P.W-2. The Complainant also examined Sanjay Kumar Das as P.W-3. He is driver of the aforesaid vehicle.
- After closing evidence the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P No.1 submitted written argument.
- In this case it is admitted fact that the vehicle purchased on financial aid of the O.P. and subsequently the O.P repossessed the vehicle on the plea of defaulter. The Complainant by adducing oral evidence stated that he paid all the EMI in time and obtained receipt for some transaction and did not receive receipts for other transaction. It is not clear from the evidence on record on which transaction of EMI he did not receive any receipt. It is also not clear from evidence on record as when and on whose presence the Complainant tendered the EMI money to Sri. Debojit Das for which no receipt received. That is why, in this case only on the basis of oral statement of the complainant without supporting reliable evidence it cannot be concluded that the plea taken by the Complainant that he paid all EMI to Debojit Das is proved.
- Hence, in my considered view the allegation of defaulter is not disproved by the Complainant. Therefore, I do not find any ill equality at this stage to repossess the vehicle. Of course, the vehicle has been sold in auction by the O.P. But relying on the observation in HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs Balwinder Singh reported III (2009) CPJ 40 (NC) I do not find any perfunctory manner of proceeding of auction sale of the vehicle in question because prior to sell the vehicle in auction, the O.Ps served notice to the complainant vide Annexure.6. Ext.4 (a), Ext.5 (a), Ext.6.
- As such in this case I do not find any justification to award any relief to the Complainant. Accordingly, this case is dismissed on contest. Supply, free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal on this the 29th day of March, 2018.
