Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. As it appears from the pleadings of both the parties that complainant in order to purchase a Truck incurred a loan from opposite party on 14.6.2005 for a sum of Rs. 8,06,545/-. It is alleged that the complainant was paying the instalments regularly till 23rd instalment but thereafter did not pay. The complainant alleged that the opposite party without any notice seized the vehicle and sold out the same for which he filed the complaint case.
4. The opposite party stated that after the agreement is executed and as per the agreement, in the event of default, they have seized the vehicle and sold it in auction. So, there is no deficiency on their part.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
The Opp. Parties will return the vehicle to the complainant at their own cost and pay a consolidated compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and cost of litigation.
If return of the vehicle is not possible then to pay a sum of Rs. 4,81,545/- as the financial loss sustained by the complainant towards down payment, body building charges and compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation with 10% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 30.01.2008 till payment and all these orders be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.
And further it is directed that the opp. Parties also returned the post-dated cheques from the date of repossession i.e. 10.08.07 to the complainant within that 30 days from the receipt of this order the complainant has already paid Rs. 5,98,375/- to the opp. Parties out of loan amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- and cannot claim any further amount henceforth.
The case is accordingly disposed of.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper because they have not considered the agreement. When the agreement is bound by both the parties, in the event of default, they have seized the vehicle and the learned District Forum have not considered facts and law properly. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to the agreement where notice is necessary to be issued before seizure of the vehicle.
8. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased by the respondent after incurring the loan from the opposite party on the execution of the relevant agreement. In the agreement, it is clearly mentioned that in case of default, the vehicle can be repossessed without any notice. It appears from the record that vehicle has been seized after issuance of notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that without notice, vehicle has been seized in the event of default of instalment as per the agreement.
10. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the agreement and passed the impugned order which is illegal and needs to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
11. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
