Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1345/2009

Kartar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

CIti Corp Finance India LTd. - Opp.Party(s)

Munish Kumar, Adv, (C)

15 Sep 2010

ORDER


CHANDIGARH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-IIPlot No. 5-B, Sector 19-B, Madhya marg, Chandigarh - 160019
CONSUMER CASE NO. 1345 of 2009
1. Kartar SinghS/o Sh. Ajit Singh Grewal, R/o Village Ghanauli District Rupnagar and Presentaly at # 1427-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. CIti Corp Finance India LTd.Citi Corp Finance India Ltd., Citi Corp, Centre Floor V, C-61, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (EAST), Mumbai through its Managing Director2. Citi Corp Finance India Ltd. C/o Rajeev and Aggarwal, Associate SCO No. 124-125, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Head3. Citi Corp Finance India Ltd., Shangai TowerSCO 13, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Head4. Naresh Kumar Working in Citi Corp Finance India Ltd, C/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No. 124-125, Sector Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh5. Maninder Pal Singh Working in Citi Corp Finance India LTdC/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Assocaite, SCO 124-125, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh6. Vishal Working in Citi Corp Finance India Ltd.C/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No. 124-25, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :Munish Kumar, Adv. for the complainant
For the Respondent :Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs 1 & 3. Ops 2,4,5 & 6 already exparte

Dated : 15 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
U.T. CHANDIGARH
 
                        Complaint Case No.: 1345 of 2009
 Date of Inst: 29.09.2009
                                    Date of Decision:15.09.2010
Kartar Singh s/o Sh.Ajit Singh Grewal r/o Village Ghanauli District Rupnagar and present at H.No.1427-A, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh.
                                                                                    ---Complainant
V E R S U S
1.         Citi Corp Finance India Limited, Citi Corp Centre, Floor V, C-61, Bandra Kurla Complex, G Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its Managing Director.
 
2.         Citi Corp Finance India Limited, c/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No.124-125, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Branch Head.
3.         Citi Corp Finance India Limited, Shangai Tower, SCO No.13, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Head.
4.         Naresh Kumar working in Citi Corp Finance India Limited, c/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No.124-25, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
5.         Maninder Pal Singh working in Citi Corp Finance India Limited, c/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No.124-25, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
6.         Vishal working in Citi Corp Finance India Limited, c/o Rajeev and Aggarwal Associate, SCO No.124-25, Second Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh
---Opposite Parties
QUORUM                  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT
                                    SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI               MEMBER
                                    SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA                           MEMBER
 
PRESENT:               Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv. for complainant
Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs No.1 and 3.
OP Nos.2, 4 to 6 exparte.
                                                                        ---
PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT
                        By this order, we are disposing of the following two consumer complaints including the present one as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these cases:-

Sr
No
C.C. No.
Name of complainants
Name of OPs.
1.
1345/2009
Kartar Singh
Citi Corp Finance India Limited and others
2.
1346/2009
Bhupinder Singh
-do-

 
2.                     For the purpose of disposal of these complaints, the facts have been culled out from C.C.No.1345/2009-Kartar Singh Versus Citi Corp Finance India Limited and others
3.                     Sh.Kartar Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :-
i)          Restore the possession of the truck bearing registration No.PB-12-J-9932 or in the alternative to pay its price.
ii)         Pay a sum of Rs.4 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
iii)        Pay a sum of Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.
4.                     Admittedly, the complainant took a loan of Rs.13,69,000/- from OP on 01.08.2007 for purchase of the truck bearing registration PB-12-J-9932. The said loan was to be repaid in 48 monthly equated installments of Rs.38,812/- each commencing from 01.09.2007. On 23.08.2009, the truck was repossessed by OP for non-payment of installments.
                        According to the complainant, he is a poor person and had purchased the truck in question for earning his livelihood. He had been paying the installments regularly. He could not pay installments after 31.07.2009 due to some financial difficulties. On 23.08.2009, when the driver was going to deliver the material at its destination, he was intercepted by the musclemen of OPs on the way who asked him to hand over the truck as the complainant has failed to pay the installments. It has been pleaded by complainant that the driver requested the said musclemen of OPs i.e. OPs No.4 to 6 not to take the possession of the truck and to produce the relevant documents for taking the possession of the vehicle. However, his request was not acceded to and the truck was forcibly taken into possession by OPs No.4 to 6. It has further been pleaded that the complainant contacted the officials of OPs at Chandigarh and showed his willingness to regularize the account but to no avail. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that before repossession of the vehicle, no notice was served upon him regarding the same which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
                        According to the complainant, due to repossession of the truck, he suffered mental agony and financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In these circumstances, he is entitled to the reliefs mentioned above.
5.                     On the other hand, the case of OPs No.1 and 3 is that the said truck was hypothecated with OP-Bank. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, OP-Bank had authority to take possession of the truck in case the installments are not paid regularly. According to OP-Bank, the complainant was irregular in payment of the loan installments. It has been denied that OPs No.4 to 6 are employees of OP-Bank. It has further been pleaded by OPs that the vehicle of the possession was taken over by the receiver after following due procedure of law and as per the order dated 13.08.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. According to Ops, the matter is pending adjudication before the Arbitrator and as such the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It has further been pleaded that complainant was issued notice dated 12.08.2009 for clearance of the dues which he failed to do so and as such the possession of the vehicle has been rightly taken as per the order dated 13.08.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 3, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.
6.                     OPs No.2, 4 to 6 refused to accept the summons. As refusal is a good service, therefore, these OPs were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 19.11.2009.
7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 
8.                     The case of the complainant is that he had been regularly paying the monthly installments of the loan upto 31.07.2009 and thereafter due to some financial difficulty he could not pay the remaining installments.   Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle of the complainant was forcibly taken by the musclemen of OPs without following due procedure of law on 23.08.2009 when the driver of the vehicle was going to deliver the consignment at its destination.
9.                     On the other hand, the contention of the OP-Bank is that possession of the vehicle in question has been taken over by the receiver appointed by the court of Sh.Arun Kumar Arya, Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide its order dated 13.08.2009 and therefore, there is no illegality in taking over the possession of the vehicle. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the OP has placed on record the copy of the order dated 13.08.2009 passed by Sh.Arun Kumar Arya, Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. From the perusal of the order 13.08.2009 passed by Sh.Arun Kumar Arya, Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, it is evident that Mr.Navnidish Mishtra, an official of the OP-Bank was appointed as a receiver and he was authorised to take possession of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances, the vehicle in question was taken into possession in accordance with law.
10.                   Ratio of the cases titled as Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijaylaxmi reported in III(2007) CPJ-161 (NC) and Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, 2007(2) ACJ-088 (SC) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the cases cited above, the vehicles were re-possessed without any order/authority of any court/competent authority.
11.                   Similar allegations have been made against OPs in another connected Consumer Complaint No.1346 of 2009 titled as Bhupinder Singh Vs. Corp Finance India Limited and others as have been made in this complaint.  In the reply filed by OPs, similar objections have been taken as have been taken in this case.
12.                   In these circumstances, the complainants have failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs.
13.                   In view of the above findings, both the complaints are dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
15.09.2010                                                                                                    sd/-
(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)
PRESIDENT
cm
sd/-
(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)
MEMBER
 
Sd/-
(MADHU MUTNEJA)
MEMBER
 

MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBERHONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER