Haryana

Kaithal

CC/273/2022

Satbir - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDB Financial Service Ltd. etc. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Sharma

01 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                 Complaint Case No.273/2022.

                                                 Date of institution: 11.11.2022.

                                                 Date of decision:01.09.2023.

Satbir aged 35 years son of Sh. Banarsi Dass, resident of Village Teontha, Tehsil Pundri, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. HDB Financial Service Ltd. through its Manager r/o SCO-84, 2^nd Floor, Mahila Ashram Complex, Karnal.
2. HDB Financial Service Ltd. through its Director Radhika, 2^nd floor, Law Garden, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009.

….OPs.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:     Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                OPs exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Satbir-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.  

2.                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Splendor Plus Self Drum BSVI 135 and the same is hypothecated with the OPs and complainant also paid down payment of Rs.10,000/- at the time of purchasing said vehicle.  The loan amount of Rs.70,999/- was disbursed by the OPs on 10.11.2020 in favour of complainant against the aforesaid vehicle.  As per loan agreement, the complainant paid six installments of Rs.3017/- each.  During the loan period, the father of complainant had suffered heart attack, that is why the complainant also spend huge amount on his treatment and unable to pay regular monthly installment to the OPs.   Some unsocial person being recovery agent on behalf of OPs came on 21.05.2022 without any order of court at complainant’s house and snatched the above-said vehicle from the possession of complainant.  The complainant has challenged the notice dt. 08.06.2022 for the sum of Rs.1,00,760.15 paise and thereafter, another notice issued by the OPs dt. 06.07.2022 for the sum of Rs.48,810/-.  The said notices are wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

3.             Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt.12.01.2023 passed by this commission.

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C12 and thereafter, closed the evidence.     

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Splendor Plus Self Drum BSVI 135 and the same was hypothecated with the OPs and complainant also paid down payment of Rs.10,000/- at the time of purchasing said vehicle.  The loan amount of Rs.70,999/- was disbursed by the OPs on 10.11.2020 in favour of complainant against the aforesaid vehicle.  As per loan agreement, the complainant paid six installments of Rs.3017/- each.  During the loan period, the father of complainant had suffered heart attack, that is why the complainant also spend huge amount on his treatment and unable to pay regular monthly installment to the OPs.   Some unsocial person being recovery agent on behalf of OPs came on 21.05.2022 without any order of court at complainant’s house and snatched the above-said vehicle from the possession of complainant.  The complainant has challenged the notice dt. 08.06.2022 for the sum of Rs.1,00,760.15 paise and thereafter, another notice issued by the OPs dt. 06.07.2022 for the sum of Rs.48,810/-.  The said notices are stated to be wrong and illegal.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.   

7.         The grievance of the complainant is that on 21.05.2022, some unsocial person being recovery agent on behalf of OPs snatched the vehicle from the possession of complainant and he has sought the relief from this Commission by giving direction to OPs to release the vehicle in favour of complainant.  We have perused the pre-sale notice dt. 08.06.2022 given by the OPs to the complainant as per Annexure-C2, wherein it is mentioned that “In case you do not repay the outstanding dues within the stipulated dates.  The HDBFS will proceed with the auctioning of the vehicle without any further notice to you”.  This Commission does not know whether the OPs have auctioned the vehicle in question or not on account of non-payment of installments by the complainant.  From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the complicated issue is involved in the matter which cannot be decided in summary procedure before this Commission and for adjudication of the same, detailed evidence is required.  So, the Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the matter in controversy where elaborate and detailed evidence can be produced.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court.  In case titled as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB  reported in 1998(1) CPC page 150, decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

8.             Thus, in view of above discussion, we dispose of the complaint accordingly and complainant is at liberty to approach the court/civil court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, the complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:01.09.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.