The respondent, Dharambir s/o Balwant Singh filed consumer complaint in question before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind stating that he purchased a Mahindra Max- 2WD-10 STR vehicle for a sum of Rs.4,17,000/- vide bill dated 11.2.2002 from Car Sean Centre, authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Kaithal, Haryana. The complainant availed loan for Rs.3,25,000/- from the OP/petitioner, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for the purchase of the said vehicle. It is alleged that the petitioner/OP took forcible possession of the said vehicle on the plea that the complainant had defaulted in the payment of instalments of the said loan. There was no notice given to the complainant before the possession was taken. The complainant stated that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 19.5.2003, in which the complainant and some other occupants suffered serious injuries and some of the passengers died. The complainant remained admitted at PGIMS, Rohtak upto December, 2004 and he was declared 100% disabled/insane. The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint, vide order dated 6.11.2008, observing that the possession of the vehicle had not been taken by the OP in accordance with law. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs to the complainant within two months, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been rejected, vide impugned order dated 9.10.2012, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 2. During hearing before this Commission, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated during one of the hearings that the complainant had himself surrendered the vehicle to them, due to his failure to pay the instalments of loan in time. The petitioner was asked to produce evidence in this regard, but the learned counsel stated during hearing on 22.6.2016 that they had no documents etc. to establish whether the complainant had himself surrendered the vehicle. 3. The learned counsel for petitioner referred to the account statement of the loan case, a copy of which has been placed on record. He stated that the action taken by the petitioner for re-possession of the vehicle was in accordance with law and that it was clear from the accounts statement that the complainant had defaulted in the payment of loan instalments. Learned counsel also stated that the complaint filed on 9.11.2006 was also barred by limitation. 4. During hearing before this Commission, the respondent/ complainant was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 25.4.2012, because the notice sent for his service was received back with the postal remarks “refused”. 5. An examination of the facts on record and consideration of the arguments advanced before me reveals that the vehicle was re-possessed by the petitioner on the ground that the complainant/loanee had failed to deposit the instalments of loan in time. It is not clear as to what happened after the said re-possession was done. It has been stated in the grounds of revision petition that the petitioner took possession of the vehicle according to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, because the respondent failed to re-pay the loan amount. It has not been clarified, however, as to what was the fate of the vehicle after the said re-possession; whether the vehicle was sold by the petitioner and whether the accounts were settled after realization of the sale proceeds. A perusal of the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission reveals that these consumer fora dealt upon the propriety of the action taken by the petitioner in re-possessing the vehicle. The State Commission have simply stated that the forcible possession is not valid under the eyes of law and it was the duty of the petitioner to give due notice before taking any such action. It is felt that the consumer fora should have gone into the depth of the matter and determined clearly whether the instalments due from the loanee had been duly paid in time or at a later stage and whether the petitioner had sold the vehicle and made adjustments from the sale proceeds realized therefrom. 6. In the light of these observations, there is no alternative but to set aside the orders passed by the consumer fora below and remit the case back to the District Forum with the direction that they should call both the parties and find out whether the loan account had been settled between the parties and whether there had been any deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner towards the complainant in any manner. In case there are justifiable reasons for making any relief to the complainant, the District Forum should give detailed reasons for the same, before giving their conclusion. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and direction is given to the District Forum accordingly. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. |
