Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant being an unemployed youth approached the opposite party No.1- Bank for financial assistance to purchase a tractor for cultivating the land. It is alleged that the complainant incurred a loan of Rs. 4,99,000/- from the opposite party no.1-Bank with a promise to repay the same in eighteen instalments. Accordingly the vehicle Tractor was purchased on 20.6.2009. Thereafter, the complainant continued to pay the instalments but due to non-providing of other instruments he could not pay the loan amount on instalments regularly. It is alleged that the opposite party without any notice re-possessed the vehicle on 3.2.2011 and thereafter it was sold out in auction on 10.12.2011. The complainant was ready to pay Rs.60,000/- but the opposite party no.1 did not agree to his proposal. Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed the complaint petition.
4. Opposite Party no.1 filed written version by stating that the complainant has incurred a loan of Rs. 4,99,000/- from them and the loan agreement was executed by both the parties. As per the agreement, the complainant became a defaulter, the vehicle was repossessed by delivering the notice prior to re-possession. So, there is no deficiency on their part.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum have passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The complaint be and same is dismissed against O.Ps without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on the 22nd day of February, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the case with proper perspective. According to him, the complainant has paid most of the instalments but did not pay some instalments due to financial crisis. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is defective because it has not considered the agreement where the complainant is required to get notice from the opposite parties. Since no notice was served prior to the seizure, he submits that no prior notice was given for which he has also suffered mental agony. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is clear stipulation in the terms and conditions of the agreement that in case of default, the vehicle will be repossessed. He drew our attention that prior notice has been served on the appellant. He also submitted that the complainant was asked to repay the loan but failure on the part of the complainant, the vehicle was re-possessed. Therefore, he supports the impugned order.
8. Considered the submissions of the parties, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that the Tractor was purchased by the complainant being financed by opposite party-Bank for Rs. 4,99,000/- payable in equal instalments. It is also admitted fact that the complainant became defaulter in payment of instalments but paid the maximum instalments. Due to non-supply of trailer, he was not able to plough the land and as such he incurred financial loss. We are not concerned about the fact of trailer as loan was advanced by opposite party for the purchase of the Tractor. Whether the complainant has utilised the Tractor without the trailer is not a matter of concern. Apart from this, we have gone through the record and the agreement clearly shows that in case of default, the opposite party can re-possess the vehicle. Besides, we are of the view that before re-possession of the vehicle, a notice was issued asking the complainant to pay the arrear instalments failing which the vehicle-Tractor will be seized and sold. The vehicle was repossessed on 3.2.2011. The documents shows that he was aware about the Tractor being sold out. The complainant has been served with notice before seizure, we are of the view that the question of non-issuance of notice before the seizure of the vehicle is not correct. Therefore, repossession of the vehicle is proved by the opposite party. Not only this, but also auction of the sale is concerned, we also find that a general notice has been given. In such circumstances, we are of the view that repossession and sale of the vehicle are legal and justified. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld.
10. The appeal being devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
