Complainant Dheer Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to release his vehicle immediately. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was totally unemployed, so he purchased a truck make Ashok Leyland 3116 12 Tyres bearing Registration No.PB-35-Q-3637 for the purpose of earning his livelihood for himself and for his family members. He himself was plying the truck by way of self-employment which was financed. The entire loan was agreed to be paid in 47 installments. He had been making payment of installments with the opposite parties regularly. Upto 31.12.2015 total installments comes to 36 and total payable amount of 36 installments comes to Rs.18,48,240/-. He had paid Rs.18,26,770/- but the opposite parties with malafide intention refused to accept installment for the month of January 2016. He has further pleaded that to his utter surprise, the opposite parties have taken possession of the abovesaid vehicle on 24.12.2015 forcibly, when the vehicle was in the route towards Indore (MP). The opposite parties have also taken into custody all documents of the vehicle and since then vehicle was in illegal custody of the opposite parties. He approached the opposite parties and requested them to release the vehicle as he has not committed any default in repayment of loan installments but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests. He was suffering financial loss of Rs.3000/- per day. The opposite parties are liable to hand over possession of the vehicle to him, as he has paid installments of loan from time to time without any default, but the opposite parties with malafide intention and ulterior motive forcibly and illegally taken possession of the vehicle from him . Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite parties have issued letter dated 17.10.2015 for calling the complainant to settle his claim including additional finance interest as per the terms of the agreement. It was also mentioned in the said letter that in case the complainant will not clear all the pending dues within three days failing which the opposite parties enforced the terms of contract including the seizure of the vehicle and in that event the complainant will be liable for all the costs incurred and other consequences but inspite of that the complainant become defaulter for non-payment of the loan amount alongwith interest. Moreover, it was made clear in clause 14.2 of the Loan Agreement the opposite parties have every right to seize the vehicle in case the complainant committed any default in non payment of the loan amount. He has next submitted that the complainant has no right to take possession of the vehicle from the opposite parties as he himself become defaulter for non-payment of the loan installments. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 issued Pre-Sale notice dated 9.02.2016 that a sum of Rs.2,49,092/- as on 9.2.2016 was due towards the complainant and still due and payable by the complainant to the loan account even after adjusting the installments paid by the complainant, therefore, the opposite parties no.1 and 2 requested the complainant to settle the loan account by paying Rs.6,46,793/- as on 9.2.2016 but he did not pay any heed. All other averments made in complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Anuj Dubey, Power of Attorney Holder of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1/A along with other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and Mark A and closed the evidence.
6. We have thoroughly examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of the opposite party (OP1&2) financers’ alleged forcible repossession/seizure of the complainant’s financed Truck. However, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove his allegation of forcible re-possession of his financed Truck (by the OP financers) such as: DDR/FIR/other complaint etc and as such his allegation amounts to a bald statement. Also, the OP financers have admitted but a lawful (legally consented) seizure/repossession of the financed Truck on account of poor/insufficient repayment etc by the complainant.
7. We find that there has been a serious dispute pertaining to the quantum of ‘repayment’ of the Truck Loan finance and there have been diagonally conflicting/opposing claims by the complainant vis-à-vis OP financers and thus the present dispute indicates more of an issue of settlement of accounts rather than a matter of forcible repossession of financed vehicle. Also, the affidavits and documentary evidence produced by both the parties pertain to ‘repayment and outstanding’ of the Loan Amount such as: Statement of A/c (Ex.C2 & Ex.OP4), Schedule of Repayment (Ex.C3). Loan Agreement (Ex.OP3) & Pre-Sale Notice Ex.OP5; whereas, the prime issue in dispute i.e., ‘forcible repossession’ of the financed Truck and the prime relief sought i.e., ‘Release of the repossessed Truck’ have not been touched during the present proceedings. We find that both the contesting parties have duly put forth their own lengthy and elaborate calculations in line with their own interpretations of the terms of loan agreements and others etc., little realizing that ‘disputes’ pertaining to ‘Rendition & Settlement’ of accounts are not ‘consumer’ complaints and as such do not fall within the ambit and adjudicatory jurisdiction as bestowed by the benevolent statute namely: the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986. We are strengthened in our above legal proposition by virtue of the judgment pronounced by honorable Gujrat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in Appeal # 450/2004 titled: Ashok Leyland vs Himanshu S Thuma; duly referring therein the case titled: Manager, St. Marys Hire Purchase (P) Ltd., vs. N A Jose (1995) 3 CPJ 58 (NC); to finally settle the issue/interpretation of statutory law in question, here.
8. In the light of the all above, we are not inclined to proceed ahead with the current adjudicatory pertaining to the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however liberty to the complainant to avail any other suitable remedy under law. No orders as to its costs.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
August 19, 2016 Member.
*MK*
