JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant/respondent no. 1 purchased a tractor and got the same financed from the petitioner company by taking a loan of Rs.4,65,000/-. The tractor was purchased for a price of Rs.7,30,000/-. The loan taken by the complainant was repayable in installments. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.2,65,000/- to the petitioner but thereafter, defaulted in payment of the fourth installment due to his bad financial condition and therefore, the petitioner allegedly took forcible possession of the tractor without any prior notice and kept the same at an anonymous place. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.1,11,290/-. When he reached the office of the petitioner for payment of the said amount, the petitioner refused to accept the same and told him that the tractor had been sold to another person. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation on account of the aforesaid deficiency in the service rendered to him by the petitioner. 2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which inter-alia claimed that they had issued a final call letter dated 01.09.2015 to the petitioner for deposit of Rs.1,03,428/- out of which he deposited only Rs.88,000/- on 12.09.2015 and refused to deposit the balance amount, whereupon the Seizing Department seized the tractor as per the loan agreement and informed the concerned Police Station in this regard. A notice was thereafter, issued to the complainant giving him an opportunity to deposit the balance amount but he did not pay the same and the tractor was therefore, sold on 29.04.2016. 3. The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the complainant had defaulted in payment of the loan taken by him, the tractor was rightfully seized in terms of the agreement executed between the parties and after following the due procedure. He further states that the tractor was sold since the complainant did not pay the balance amount even after it had been seized. 5. The notice issued on 01.09.2015 issued by the petitioner to the complainant would show that he was given one week to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,03,428/- and was informed that the petitioner shall take recourse to its rights available under the agreement if the said amount was not paid. The said letter dated 01.09.2015 did not convey it to the complainant that the tractor itself would be seized in case the outstanding amount was not paid within a week. More importantly, even if the complainant had not paid the outstanding amount of Rs.1,03,428/- as is alleged by the petitioner, the tractor should have been repossessed by following the due process of law i.e. approaching a Civil Court for taking possession of the same as per the terms of the agreement executed between the parties. The petitioner could not have taken the law into its own hands and could not have taken forcible possession of the tractor even if the outstanding amount had not been paid to it within the time stipulated in this regard. Therefore, the petitioner was deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not following the due process of law for repossession of the tractor. 6. In the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to in what manner, the tractor was sold after it had been seized by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the normal procedure is to call for tenders from different vendors and sell the tractor to the highest tenderer. There is no document on record to prove that a transparent and fair procedure was followed for selling the tractor seized by the petitioner. Admittedly, no public auction for selling the tractor was held. A fair procedure, in my opinion, required a public auction of the tractor in order to ensure that the tractor fetched highest possible price in the market. That having not been done, this was yet another act of deficiency on the part of the petitioner in rendering service to the complainant. 7. As noted earlier, the tractor was purchased for a consideration of Rs.7,30,000/-. It was sold by the petitioner within about two years, for a paltry consideration of Rs.2,79,000/-. This is a clear indication that a fair and transparent procedure was not followed for selling the tractor and that is why it fetched such a less price within a short time span of about two years. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the concurrent order passed by the fora below does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed. |
