Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

1.       Sh.Kinder Singh  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is  an illiterate and unemployed person and took auto loan from Opposite Parties  in May, 2013 for the purchase of Auto  having registration number PB-46M-4852 for Rs.1,80,000/- which was to be paid in EMIs by the complainant and the RC of the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant. But all the bills of the Auto and Original RC are in possession of Opposite Party and duplicate RC is provided to the complainant. The complainant is regularly paying the EMIs of Rs.6100/- to the Opposite Parties, but in the month of November, 2015 the muscle men of Opposite Party No.2 repossessed the vehicle in question  without issuing any prior notice or any intimation to the complainant.  The complainant immediately approached  the Opposite Parties and offered to make the complete outstanding payment and for the release of the vehicle. The complainant in this way, has deposited Rs.2,45,000/- against the receipts, but the officials of the Opposite Parties are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and are not handing over the possession of the vehicle inspite of the fact that the complainant is ready to make the complete outstanding payment if any pending. But however, the Opposite Parties orally demanded Rs.85000/- though having computed wrongly by adding the frivolous charges. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in repossessing the said vehicle of the complainant without any prior notice and thereafter not returning the same inspite of the fact that the complainant immediately was ready to make the payment, if any outstanding against him, is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has caused agony and harassment to the complainant.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties be directed to return the vehicle in question of the complainant.

b)      Opposite Parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Parties be directed to pay the adequate cost of the present litigation.

d)      Opposite Parties be directed to submit the account s tatement of the complainant till date. 

e)       Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled under the law, equity and justice be also allowed.  

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form against Opposite Party No.2; that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint against the answering Opposite Party. Moreover, neither there is any branch office of Opposite Party No.2 nor any authorised agent  for collecting the instalments due from the prospective client in the territory of Amritsar.  The complainant had entered into and executed Hire Purchase Agreement for availing financial facility at the registered office of Opposite Party No.2 only at Jalandhar on 1.6.2013. There is specific clause in the agreement for the subject vehicle that any dispute arising between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 shall be referred to an arbitrator. In fact, the complainant availed financial facility for the purchase of subject vehicle vide Hire purchase agreement dated 1.6.2013 which as duly executed by the complainant alongwith guarantor. As per the said H.P agreement dated  1.6.2013 the complainant is under legal obligation to repay a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- which includes principal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which was to be paid in 30 equal monthly instalments out of which first instalment was of Rs.5100/- and balance 29 instalments of Rs.6100/- each on regular intervals as per schedule B as mentioned in the H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013. It is significant to mention here that regular agreed payments of instalments vide H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013 is essence of contract. The complainant has failed to adhere to the financial norms for the repayment of the monthly instalments. The complainant was apprised of the outstanding balance qua subject vehicle by the answering Opposite Party from time to time, but the complainant has failed to deposit the outstanding amount with the answering Opposite Party within a stipulated period of time as per H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013. The complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 in the last week of June, 2015 and showed his financial inability to repay the outstanding amount as well as future instalments. Consequently, the complainant handed over the physical possession of the vehicle in question. The answering Opposite Party as well as Opposite Party No.1 made their best efforts for advising the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount and take back the possession of the subject vehicle so that his family well being and future earning may not suffer, but all in vain. The answering Opposite Party intimated the complainant vide letter dated 2.7.2015 which was posted on 13.7.2015 addressed to the complainant and guarantor, for selling the subject vehicle. After receiving the said letter dated 2.7.2015 the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 on 22.8.2015 and deposited a sum of Rs.16,000/- which are duly reflected in the books of account of the answering Opposite Party. The complainant requested the official of the answering Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.1 to release the subject vehicle in question with the undertaking that he shall make the outstanding payment within a short span of time. Accordingly, on the assurance of the complainant for making payment of outstanding amount, the subject vehicle was released to the complainant on 22.8.2015. However, the complainant did not turn up for depositing the outstanding amount as assured by him and failed to make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.74,900/- besides overdue late payment and other handling charges. It is significant to mention over here that the complainant again visited the office of Chand Autos, Amritsar in the presence of the official of Opposite Party No.2 on 3.10.2015 and opted to settle the case for Rs.91,100/- by depositing Rs.40,000/- in lumpsum alongwith retaining the possession of the vehicle in question by Opposite Party No.2 towards the adjustment of balance outstanding of Rs.51,100/- on the ground that the complainant is facing hardship for plying the vehicle in the area of Amrisar as the concerned authority has restricted the vehicle within registration number started with Pb-46 for plying only in the area of Tarn Taran. Accordingly, in view of the settlement, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 3.10.2015 in his account and also handed over the physical possession of the subject vehicle to Opposite Party No.2 and consented for selling the same for recovering the balance outstanding amount of Rs.51,100/-. Opposite Party No.2 even intimated the complainant regarding sale of the subject vehicle vide letter dated 19.11.2015 which was posted on 19.11.2015 addressed to the complainant and guarantor.  Ultimately, the subject vehicle was sold to Pardeep Kumar son of Kulwant Rail, resident of Ram Tirath Road, Opposite DTO Office, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.36,000/- on 4.2.2016 and the sale proceeds of the subject vehicle were credited in the account of complainant. Even after adjusting the sale proceeds, the Opposite Party No.2 suffered a financial loss of Rs.15,100/- in view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle in question could not fetch desired sale price from prospective buyer because of restrictions imposed by the transport authority for running the vehicle/ Auto rickshaw with starting number PB-46 only in the area of Tarn Taran.  Opposite Party No.2 also issued No Objection Certificate for transferring the subject vehicle in the name of Pardeep Kumar son of Kulwant Rai being the subsequent buyer vide NOC dated 19.02.2016. On merits, the answering Opposite Party took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C22  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.2  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Amarjit Singh Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/11             and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that the complainant is  an illiterate and unemployed person and took auto loan from Opposite Parties  in May, 2013 for the purchase of Auto  having registration number PB-46M-4852 for Rs.1,80,000/- which was to be paid in EMIs by the complainant and the RC of the vehicle is registered in the name of the complainant. But all the bills of the Auto and Original RC are in possession of Opposite Party and duplicate RC is provided to the complainant. The complainant is regularly paying the EMIs of Rs.6100/- to the Opposite Parties, but in the month of November, 2015 the muscle men of Opposite Party No.2 repossessed the vehicle in question  without issuing any prior notice or any intimation to the complainant.  The complainant immediately approached  the Opposite Parties and offered to make the complete outstanding payment and for the release of the vehicle. The complainant in this way, has deposited Rs.2,45,000/- against the receipts, but the officials of the Opposite Parties are delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and are not handing over the possession of the vehicle inspite of the fact that the complainant is ready to make the complete outstanding payment if any pending. But however, the Opposite Parties orally demanded Rs.85000/- though having computed wrongly by adding the frivolous charges. The aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties in repossessing the said vehicle of the complainant without any prior notice and thereafter not returning the same inspite of the fact that the complainant immediately was ready to make the payment, if any outstanding against him, is an act of deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, mal practices and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has caused agony and harassment to the complainant.

8.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.2 has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant had entered into and executed Hire Purchase Agreement for availing financial facility at the registered office of Opposite Party No.2 only at Jalandhar on 1.6.2013, copy of the same accounts for Ex.OP2/2. There is specific clause in the agreement for the subject vehicle that any dispute arising between the complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 shall be referred to an arbitrator. In fact, the complainant availed financial facility for the purchase of subject vehicle vide Hire purchase agreement dated 1.6.2013 which as duly executed by the complainant alongwith guarantor. As per the said H.P agreement dated  1.6.2013 the complainant is under legal obligation to repay a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- which includes principal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- which was to be paid in 30 equal monthly instalments out of which first instalment was of Rs.5100/- and balance 29 instalments of Rs.6100/- each on regular intervals as per schedule B as mentioned in the H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013. It is significant to mention here that regular agreed payments of instalments vide H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013 is essence of contract. The complainant has failed to adhere to the financial norms for the repayment of the monthly instalments. The complainant was apprised of the outstanding balance qua subject vehicle by the answering Opposite Party from time to time, but the complainant has failed to deposit the outstanding amount with the answering Opposite Party within a stipulated period of time as per H.P. Agreement dated 1.6.2013. The complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 in the last week of June, 2015 and showed his financial inability to repay the outstanding amount as well as future instalments. Consequently, the complainant handed over the physical possession of the vehicle in question. The answering Opposite Party as well as Opposite Party No.1 made their best efforts for advising the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount and take back the possession of the subject vehicle so that his family well being and future earning may not suffer, but all in vain. The answering Opposite Party intimated the complainant vide letter dated 2.7.2015 which was posted on 13.7.2015 addressed to the complainant and guarantor, for selling the subject vehicle. After receiving the said letter dated 2.7.2015 the complainant visited the office of Opposite Party No.1 on 22.8.2015 and deposited a sum of Rs.16,000/- which are duly reflected in the books of account of the answering Opposite Party. The complainant requested the official of the answering Opposite Party and Opposite Party No.1 to release the subject vehicle in question with the undertaking that he shall make the outstanding payment within a short span of time. Accordingly, on the assurance of the complainant for making payment of outstanding amount, the subject vehicle was released to the complainant on 22.8.2015. However, the complainant did not turn up for depositing the outstanding amount as assured by him and failed to make the payment of outstanding amount of Rs.74,900/- besides overdue late payment and other handling charges. It is significant to mention over here that the complainant again visited the office of Chand Autos, Amritsar in the presence of the official of Opposite Party No.2 on 3.10.2015 and opted to settle the case for Rs.91,100/- by depositing Rs.40,000/- in lumpsum alongwith retaining the possession of the vehicle in question by Opposite Party No.2 towards the adjustment of balance outstanding of Rs.51,100/- on the ground that the complainant is facing hardship for plying the vehicle in the area of Amrisar as the concerned authority has restricted the vehicle within registration number started with Pb-46 for plying only in the area of Tarn Taran. Accordingly, in view of the settlement, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/- on 3.10.2015 in his account and also handed over the physical possession of the subject vehicle to Opposite Party No.2 and consented for selling the same for recovering the balance outstanding amount of Rs.51,100/-. Opposite Party No.2 even intimated the complainant regarding sale of the subject vehicle vide letter dated 19.11.2015 which was posted on 19.11.2015 addressed to the complainant and guarantor.  Ultimately, the subject vehicle was sold to Pardeep Kumar son of Kulwant Rail, resident of Ram Tirath Road, Opposite DTO Office, Amritsar for a sum of Rs.36,000/- on 4.2.2016 and the sale proceeds of the subject vehicle were credited in the account of complainant. Even after adjusting the sale proceeds, the Opposite Party No.2 suffered a financial loss of Rs.15,100/- in view of the settlement arrived at between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2. The vehicle in question could not fetch desired sale price from prospective buyer because of restrictions imposed by the transport authority for running the vehicle/ Auto rickshaw with starting number PB-46 only in the area of Tarn Taran.  Opposite Party No.2 also issued No Objection Certificate for transferring the subject vehicle in the name of Pardeep Kumar son of Kulwant Rai being the subsequent buyer vide NOC dated 19.02.2016. To prove its case, the Opposite Party No.2 produced copy of hire purchase agreement Ex.OP2/2 and Ex.OP2/3, copy of retail invoice dated 1.6.2013 accounts for Ex.OP2/4, copy of letter dated 2.7.2015 Ex.Op2/5, copy of postal receipts Ex.Op2/6, copy of letter dated 19.11.2015 Ex.OP2/7, copy of postal receipts Ex.OP2/8, copy of letter Ex.Op2/9, copy of extract of resolution Ex.Op2/10, affidavit of Sh.Pardeep Kumar Ex.OP2/11 and corroborated these documents with duly sworn affidavit of Sh.amarjit Singh Ex.OP2/1.  On the other hand, there is nothing in the hands of the complainant to rebut these documents.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.