Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/193

Lakhveer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Charanjit Sidana

04 Feb 2020

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        193 of 2019

Date of Institution :    08.08.2019

Date of Decision :      04.02.2020

Lakhveer Singh aged about 41 years, son of Gurdeep Singh, resident of Dod, Opp. Government School, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                                    

  ...Complainant

Versus

1. Manager, Fullterton Credit Company Ltd., 4788, 1^st Floor, Jagdambey Complex, Rajpura Road, Tagore Nagar, E-Block, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.
2. Recovery Officer, Mannat Enterprises, Bhoir Compound, Near Kausar Hotel, Kharwali Devi Road, Old Mumbai-Puna Road, Shill Phata, Kausa, Thane.                                                  

   ........ OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh Charanjit Sidana, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

                     OPs Exparte.

cc no.-193 of 2019

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

                                               Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to release the vehicle of complainant and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses.

2                                              Briefly stated the case of complainant is that he earns his livelihood by running a truck bearing registration no.RJ-21-GA-9121, which he purchased in year 2018 from someone through hypothecation vide loan agreement no.40000310355182 with OP-1on payment of Rs.3 lacs as advance payment and remaining amount was agreed to be paid in 45 instalments of Rs.32,818/-each. It is submitted that after payment of 5 instalments regularly, complainant defaulted the instalments due to illness of his father. It is further submitted that on 17.06.2019 complainant was going on his vehicle for his work and when he reached Mumbai, OP-2 took away  his truck from him on account of defaulted EMIs and in turn gave him signed inventory slip as receipt and directed him to pay the defaulted EMIs to OP-1. Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs.1,32,000/-with OP-1 through NEFT on 26.07.2019 and requested them to release his vehicle, but OP-1 demanded more amount from him. on this, complainant paid Rs.2,50,000/-to OP-1 on 2.08.2019,

 

 

cc no.-193 of 2019

then again Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS and Rs.48,000/-through NEFT on same date. Till now, complainant has paid Rs.6,80,000/-to OPs against said loan. Though complainant has made payment of instalments in advance to OP-1, but despite repeated requests, OPs have not released him his vehicle which is the only source of income and his livelihood to him. Complainant has also issued legal notice to OPs through his counsel, but all in vain. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint and for seeking directions to OPs to release his vehicle and has further prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him and for litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 14.08.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               As per office report, notice issued to OPs through registered cover received back with report ‘Left’ by Postal Authorities  and  then, OPs were served through  publication. Nobody appeared in the Forum on date fixed on behalf of OPs for contesting the claim of complainant and therefore, vide order dated 11.11.2019, OPs were proceeded against exparte.

cc no.-193 of 2019

5                                              Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in exparte evidence, affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-23 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6                                         We have heard the exparte arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and other documents placed on record.

7                                               The case of the complainant is that he used to earn his livelihood by running a truck that  he purchased in year 2018 through hypothecation vide loan agreement with OP-1 on payment of Rs.3 lacs as advance payment. Remaining amount was agreed to be paid in 45 instalments of Rs.32,818/-each. Due to illness of his father, he defaulted some instalments and on 17.06.2019 when he was in Mumbai for his work, OP-2 took away his truck from him on account of defaulted EMIs and in turn gave him signed inventory slip ExC-2 as receipt and directed him to pay the defaulted EMIs to OP-1. Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs.1,32,000/-with OP-1 through NEFT on 26.07.2019 and then, Rs.2,50,000/-to OP-1 on 2.08.2019, then again Rs.2,50,000/- through RTGS and Rs.48,000/-through NEFT on same date. Complainant has paid Rs.6,80,000/-to OPs against said loan, but despite payment of instalments in advance to OP-1 and several requests, OPs have not released his vehicle which was the only source of income and his livelihood to him. Legal notice to sent to OPs also bore no fruit. It amounts to deficiency in

 

cc no.-193 of 2019

service and trade mal practice. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and for litigation expenses. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal from OPs side because OPs are exparte in present case.

8                                              To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of Repossessed Vehicle Inventory List Ex C-2 that proves the contention of complainant that OPs took possession of his vehicle illegally and unlawfully on 17.06.2019. Ex C-3 copy of receipt that shows Rs.1,32,000/-were paid by complainant to OPs through NEFT on 26.06.2019. ExC-4 and Ex C-5 prove the payment of Rs.5,00,000/-to OPs on 2.08.2019 through RTGS and Ex C-6 further proves the pleadings of complainant that he paid Rs.48,000/-to Ops on 2.08.2019 through NEFT. Ex C-7 copy of legal notice dated 4.08.2019 served upon by complainant to Ops further narrates the grievance of complainant that despite payment of loan amount and several repeated requests, Ops did not release the vehicle of complainant which was the only source of livelihood for his family. Ex C-9 to Ex C-14 are copies of legal notices and postal receipts that clear the point that complainant served legal notice to OPs on several dates with request to them to release the vehicle impounded by them forcibly from him.

 

 

cc no.-193 of 2019

9                                            From the above documents there remains no doubt to the pleadings of complainant that his vehicle was taken away by OPs from him in Mumbai. Ex C-2 Repossessed Vehicle Inventory List for Commercial Vehicle proves the grievance of complainant that his vehicle was forcibly taken away by OPs from him on 17.06.2019 at 3.00 p.m. Further in the light of receipts Ex C-3 to Ex C-7, it is crystal clear that he has already made payment of major part of loan amount to OPs. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings, but on the other hand there is nothing on record from Ops side to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Being exparte, there is no rebuttal from the side of Opposite parties.

10                                                From the above discussion and in the light of documents placed on record, we are fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Though OPs have received major part of loan amount against the loan account from complainant in advance, but still they have not released the vehicle in question to complainant. OPs have no right to confiscate the vehicle of complainant. By impounding the vehicle of complainant, OPs have deprived him of earning his livelihood, which caused him huge mental agony and harassment and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Therefore, complaint in hand is

 

cc no.-193 of 2019

hereby allowed with directions to OPs to release the truck of complainant to him on payment of balance loan amount, if any within one month of receipt of the balance amount if any from complainant. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant including expenses for litigation incurred by him. Compliance be made within prescribed period, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 4.02.2020

(Param Pal Kaur)                              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                              Member                                  President