Order No. 25 dt. 21/12/2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a truck being no.WB 25D 4550. At the time of purchase the vehicle was financed by o.p. and the EMI was fixed @ Rs.19,642/- which was started on and from 5.5.11. The complainant paid the EMI till 6.8.11 in total paid the amount of Rs.2,34,818/-. In spite of payment o EMI o.p. took possession of the vehicle forcibly on 18.1.12. Since the complainant is not in a position to earn his livelihood he could not pay the EMI. The complainant agreeable to pay the entire dues to o.p. Since the complainant was harassed the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and also the quantum of loss sustained by the complainant for taking forcibly possession of the vehicle for which the complainant claimed Rs.5 lakhs.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant purchased the vehicle on the basis of the finance provided by o.p. The complainant failed and neglected to pay the loan amount and as per the agreement o.p. lawfully took possession of the said vehicle. Since the vehicle was hypothecated to o.p. bank, the complainant paid some amount for which the vehicle was released, but subsequently the complainant again started to default in repayment of the loan amount and o.p. demanded the said amount through a letter dt.5.7.12. In spite of receiving the said letter the complainant did not pay any amount and filed this case making false allegation against the o.p. and accordingly, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant took loan from o.p.
- Whether the complainant paid the EMI as per the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.p.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant took loan for the purpose of his livelihood and as per the terms of agreement the complainant paid he EMI, since the complainant failed to pay the EMI in the month of July-Aug, 2011 due to heavy rain for which o.p. took the possession of the vehicle. Because of taking possession of the vehicle and o.p. kept the vehicle in a garage wherefrom o.p. bank and their men and agents illegally committed mischief in respect of the said vehicle. Because of such illegal act on the part of o.p. the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant took loan for purchasing of a vehicle under loan cum guaranty agreement but the complainant has not paid the agreed installments for which o.p. took possession of the vehicle, but when the complainant paid the upto date payment, the vehicle was released on 1.2.12. Again the complainant started to default in making payment of EMI in the year 2012 o.p. bank sent letters to the complainant as well as to the guarantor requesting them to make payment in time, despite receiving the letters the complainant neglected to pay the amount and filed this case suppressing the actual fact. Ld. lawyer emphasized that as per law of the land an agreement was executed by and between the complainant and o.p. bank, o.p. has every right to repossess the said vehicle in case of non payment of the dues because until and unless the entire amount is paid by hirer, the bank is the absolute owner of the hypothecated vehicle. In view the facts and circumstances as stated above o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased a vehicle and he paid Emi initially and since as per the agreement he failed to pay the amount the vehicle was taken possession by o.p. After the payment of the dues the vehicle was released in favour of the complainant. From the materials on record it transpires that the complainant again defaulted in payment of the installment in the year 2012. The o.p. sent several letters to the complainant as well as the guarantors but no fruitful result was achieved, subsequently whenever o.p. tried to take possession of the vehicle to reimburse the loan amount the complainant came before this Forum, filed this case making false allegations that the o.p. committed mischief to his vehicle. The facts and circumstances show that the complainant being the hirer has no authority to take possession of the vehicle so long he does not clear the dues to the bank and since the vehicle was hypothecated to o.p. bank, the bank has / had every right to take possession of the vehicle. Taking advantage of this Forum by making false allegation against the o.p. the complainant filed this case which has got no subsistence to give any relief to the complainant, therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.296/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
