BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.189 of 2014

Date of Instt. 18.06.2014

Date of Decision :25.02.2015

Arun Kumar aged about 32 years son of Bhajan Lal R/o Village Kangiwal, PO Hazara, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Hinduja Leyland Finance, through Mg.Director/Authorized Signatory, Civil Lines, Opp.State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.M.Mohd. Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Vikas Sood Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant purchased the vehicle Maxima bearing registration No.PB-08BA-1746 from Raga Motors Pvt.Ltd for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and received the delivery of the vehicle vide delivery receipt dated 6.2.2012 and a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid against the purchase by the father of the complainant vide receipt dated 13.1.2013 of Raga Motors Pvt Ltd and balance amount was got financed from opposite party. The above said vehicle was got financed from opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- has bee paid by way of installments by the complainant. The officials of the opposite party took the forcible custody of the said vehicle about 6/7 months ago and inspite of repeated visits, the opposite party refused to hand over the custody of the vehicle. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to hand over the custody of the said vehicle to the complainant or in the alternative to pay him Rs.2,75,000/- alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant has committed intentional default and failed to discharge his liability in time. It denied that vehicle was taken forcible. It further pleaded that opposite party has got right to reprocesses the vehicle as per law. It denied the other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.C2/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O7 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through written arguments submitted by learned counsel for the complainant and have also heard learned counsel for the opposite party.

6. According to the complainant, opposite party reprocessed the vehicle without any legal right and adopting due course of law and as such he is entitled to the claim as prayed for. Counsel for the opposite party contended that the vehicle was repossessed as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. He further contended that complainant defaulted in repayment of the loan installments as agreed upon and due to this reason the vehicle was repossessed according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Ex.O3 is loan agreement. The complainant has got financed his vehicle from the opposite party. Schedule of repayment is attached with the loan agreement. According to the schedule of repayment the financed amount was repayable in monthly installment of Rs.7557/- till 15.7.2014 and then monthly installment of Rs.7057/- till 15.11.2015 and last installment was payable on 15.12.2015 of Rs.7058/-. The complainant has not specifically pleaded in the complaint that he was paying the monthly installments regularly. However the complainant has placed on record receipt dated 7.11.2012 for Rs.20,000/- Ex.C2, receipt dated 16.4.2012 for Rs.7560/- Ex.C4, receipt dated 21.3.2012 of Rs.8000/- Ex.C5 and receipt dated 29.5.2012 of Rs.7560/- Ex.C6. He has not placed on record any other payment receipt. As per repayment schedule, installments were payable every month from February onwards. The above receipts produced by the complainant clearly shows that he was not paid monthly installments of the financed amount regularly. So he committed default in repayment of the loan amount as agreed upon. As per clause 16.2 of the loan agreement upon occurrence of default, the borrower was authorized to take possession of the financed vehicle. So opposite party repossessed the vehicle according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Consequently complainant can not have any grievance on this score as he himself defaulted in repayment of the loan amount regularly. The present complaint was filed on 10.6.2014. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that the officials of the opposite party took the forcible custody of the said vehicle about 6/7 months ago. So it means that according to the complainant, the vehicle was repossessed in the end of year 2013. The complainant has not produced any receipt regarding payment of monthly installment of any month of year 2013. It means that complainant is a defaulter. Since the complainant has defaulted to repay the financed amount, as such opposite party can not be directed to hand over the custody of the financed vehicle to him which has been repossessed by it in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Further from the written reply filed by opposite party, it is not clear that if the financed vehicle has been sold by the opposite party or not. Counsel for the opposite party also failed to answer this question at the time of arguments.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed. However the opposite party is directed not to sell repossessed vehicle of the complainant, if already not sold without giving notice to him. In case opposite party has already sold the vehicle in question without giving any notice to the complainant then complainant can file a separate complaint in this regard if he is not satisfied with the amount for which the vehicle has been sold by the opposite party. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

25.02.2015 Member President.