Delhi

West Delhi

CC/18/479

RAM BHAJAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHOLAMANDALAM INV, FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI-110058

 

Complaint Case No. 479/2018

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

RAM BHAJAN SINGH

R/O  RZ- 16/ 6A, GALI NO. 3

MAIN SAGARPUR

NEW DELHI - 110045

VERSUS

 

CHOLAMANDALAM INV & FINANCE CO LTD

THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE

ADD- 28, 1^ST FLOOR, CENTRAL MARKET

PUNJABI BAGH,

NEW DELHI - 110026                                     

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

15.11.2018 19.05.2023  03.06.2023

CORAM

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, counsel or the complainant

                along with complainant in person.

              OP ex parte. 

 

ORDER

 

Per: Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

          Briefly put, the facts leading to filing of the present complaint are as under:

 

1.       Complainant submits that he had purchased a truck bearing no. HR-55-P-9367,  for a sum of RS. 17, 00, 000/- in 2016,  to earn his livelihood.  To part finance cost of the truck, the complainant  had taken loan of Rs.10,00,000/-  on 31.5.2016 vide agreement no. XVFPSK100001690186 from the OP. After purchasing the said vehicle, the complainant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards its registration charges, fitness, permit charges and insurance charges etc. respectively. Thus the total cost of the vehicle came to Rs.18,00,000/-. As per the said agreement between the complainant and OP, the loan amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 46 monthly installments of Rs. 29,487/-(including interest charges) to the OP.  The complainant regularly paid the monthly installments of Rs. 29,487/- p.m.  but on 09.11.2018, while the said vehicle of the complainant was plying at Kannauj(UP), towards Delhi, fully loaded with 25 tons of Rice, some persons armed with Lathis and Kattas  represented themselves to be the employees of OP,  stopped the vehicle  and started abusing and beating the driver of the complainant, who was driving the vehicle and took away the  vehicle, thereby threatening the driver of the complainant that in case he resisted to their said act, he will face dire consequences and the driver of the complainant was made to sign on some blank documents.

2        Complainant submits that at the relevant time, the said vehicle of the complainant was carrying a cash of Rs. 50,000/- which the above said persons had snatched from the driver. The  said vehicle was also carrying one stepny, one jack, two pressure jack and all the 12 tyres of the truck and two new batteries valued about Rs. 2,20,000/- and all the original papers of the vehicle i.e. R.C., Insurance, Driving License were also in the said vehicle which were forcibly taken away by the goons of  OP.

3.       Complainant submits that he was regularly paying the monthly installments of the said loan amount and the said act of forceful repossession of the vehicle by the OP is totally illegal and  violative of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme court of India with regard to stoppage/forceful repossession by the OP.  The complainant has every apprehension that the OP may sell the said vehicle.

4.       It is further submitted that the market value of the said vehicle as on date of filing of the complainant was  Rs. 10,00, 000/-(approx). Due to the act of  OP, in connivance with each other, the complainant has faced  mental agony and torture and was deprived of use of the said vehicle.

5.          Therefore, the complainant makes the following prayers for redressal of his grievance:-

 

a) Direct the OP to pay the claim of Rs. 10, 00,000/- to the complainant as the market value of the said vehicle alongwith interest @12% p.a.

 

b) Direct the OP to pay damages to the articles loaded in the truck to the tune of Rs. 20, 00, 000/- and cash of Rs. 50,000/-.

 

c) also direct OP to pay litigation cost of Rs. 30,000/-

 

d) further compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental pain and suffering, loss of the earning and harassment.

 

e) pass an order directing the OP to pay cost of the complaint.

 

6.       Complainant filed with the complaint, copies of inventory/sez/inv/form No.6 dated 09.11.2018, RC of the vehicle.

7.       Upon admission of the complaint on 07.12.2018, notice was issued to OP.  However, despite service, OP  neither put in appearance nor filed any reply to the complaint and accordingly vide order dated 28.8.2019, OP was proceeded against ex parte.

8.       Complainant  filed ex parte evidence  by way of affidavit and exhibited the documents filed  with the complaint as also with the affidavit such as statement of account  for the period from 07.10.2010 to 07.10.2019 issued by OP.  Written arguments were also filed by the complainant.  Oral arguments were heard on 19.5.2023 and orders reserved.

9.       During arguments, counsel for the complainant admitted that there was default of only one instalment for  which the vehicle was seized by the OP without giving any prior notice.   The vehicle was ultimately released by the OP on receipt of payment of Rs.85,000/- as penalty.   According to the complainant, he has fully  paid the loan amount. The same is reflected in the statement of account filed on record by the complainant for the period from 07.10.2010 to 07.10.2019  which shows  “FULL” against the  “Disbursal status”.   To prove the factum of  clearance of loan amount, the complainant has also filed copy of the Registration Certificate of  the vehicle from which the  hypothecation endorsement has been removed.     Counsel for the complainant submits that due to seizure of the vehicle by the OP, the complainant has suffered  financial loss as  the truck was the only source of  his livelihood which remained in OP’s captivity for 19 days. Further financial loss was also occasioned to the complainant due to snatching of Rs.50,000/- cash available with the driver at the time of seizure of the vehicle apart from other valuables lying in the vehicle value of which was quantified at Rs.2,20,000/-.   

10.     It has been held in  a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court  followed by the Hon’ble NCDRC that the  Creditor/Financier cannot take recourse to coercive steps without following due process  of law to recover the loan amount. In  the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur (2007)2 SCC 711, the Hon’ble Apex Court  has deprecated the practice of the Banks of hiring recovery agents and deputing muscle-men, to seize the vehicles and has observed that the Banks should resort to the procedure recognized by law for taking possession of the vehicle of the borrowers, who may have committed default in payment of the instalments in the following terms:

 

"16 - Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are muscle-men, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong-arm tactics.

 

" 28 - In conclusion, we say that we are governed by the rule of law in the country. The recovery of loans or seizure of vehicles could be done only through legal means. The banks cannot employ goondas to take possession by force."

 

11.     The aforesaid view was  reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of  Citicorp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijayalaxmi in Civil Appeal No. 9711 of 2011 decided on 14.11.2011, wherein on  the issue of illegal and/or wrongful recovery of vehicles by use of force, it reiterated its above view as under:-

 

"The aforesaid question has since been settled by several decisions of this Court and in particular in the decision rendered in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur (supra). It is, not, therefore, necessary for us to go into the said question all over again and we reiterate the earlier view taken that even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire- Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force. Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any action is taken for recovery in violation of such guidelines or the principles as laid down by this Court, such an action can be struck down."

 

12. A copy of this order shall be supplied free of cost to parties to the dispute in the present complaint,upon a written requisition being made in writingin the name of President of the Commission in terms of Regulation 21 of the ConsumerProtection Regulations, 2020.

File be consigned to record room after pronouncement of order.

 

(Richa Jindal)                             (Anil Kumar Koushal)                        (Sonica Mehrotra)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT