Complainant/petitioner purchased a minidor/carrier vehicle for Rs.1,84,862/- after getting a loan of Rs.1,35,000/- from the respondent which he agreed to repay in 30 installments @ Rs.6,000/- per month. However, due to an accident he defaulted in making the payment of installments. Respondent on 24.01.2005 repossessed the vehicle. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging that the respondent did not send any notice to him before repossessing the vehicle. -2- District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to return the price value of the vehicle after deducting the installments actually paid by the complainant, sale proceeds of the vehicle and an advance amount paid by the complainant. Petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. Respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission which by the impugned order has allowed the same and set aside the order of the District Forum with the following observations:- “After repossessing the vehicle, the complainant had issued a notice dated 21.1.2005 (Ex.A4) informing the complainant, what is over due instalment or other amount payable by the complainant, further informing, if they have not received the amount within 7 days, they would be constrained to take steps to sell the vehicle and adjust the sale proceeds against the amount due from him. Despite this notice was served, since it is produced by the complainant, he failed to pay the amount and it is not the case, they have made any attempt to pay the amount. Thus a party to the contract, namely, the complainant under Ex. B2, failed in his duty to pay the instalments, as agreed and such a person is not entitled to accuse the opposite party, who did their legitimate right according to Ex B2. The District Forum, without considering all these facts, as if, -3- forcibly the vehicle was removed and sold without right, has come to an erroneous conclusion, fixing deficiency upon the opposite party, which should be erased, for which purpose, appeal deserves to be accepted.” It is not disputed before us that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the installments. Petitioner was served with a notice on 21.01.2005 Annexure A-4 asking him to pay the amount within 7 days and if he fails to pay the amount, the vehicle would be repossessed. Petitioner failed to pay the amount. This was sufficient notice and the contention of the petitioner that he was not served with the notice, is not correct. Admittedly, the petitioner was a defaulter and the respondent, under the circumstances, was entitled to repossess the vehicle. No interference is called for. Dismissed. |
