Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President:-<br /> The case pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:- <br /> The Complainant in order to earn his lively hood has purchased a TATA LPT vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-D-6725 by hire purchase basis with a down payment with insurance amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-(Rupees one lac ten thousand)only and the rest amount was being financed by the Opposite Parties to be payable in equal monthly installment of Rs. 26,711/-(Rupees twenty six thousand seven hundred eleven)only each as per the term and condition agreed by the parties. The Complainant has approximately incurred an expenditure of Rs.9,01,931/-(Rupees nine lac one thousand nine hundred thirty one)only including equal monthly installment for twenty one months and the last monthly installment has paid on Dt. 21/11/2007. Due to some domestic problem the Complainant failed to pay some equal monthly installment and expressed his desire for refinance of the vehicle with some other Bank. After their approval the Complainant approached Shriram Transport Finance Company ltd. for refinance of the vehicle and also the Opposite Party No.2(two) in its letter Dt.13/02/2008 to the Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Ltd. settled the foreclosure amount for the loan account against the vehicle, to be Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lac)only. It is the case of the Complainant that on Dt. 21/04/2008 some agents deputed by the Opposite Party forcibly took away the vehicle from the possession of the Complainant while he was taking the vehicle to Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. for inspection. The Complainant alleges that with out serving any prior notice or with out adopting due process of law the Opposite Parties forcibly took away the vehicle is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> Hence the Complainant filed this case against the Opposite Parties for their deficiency in service and claims for release of the vehicle, Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only towards compensation for mental agony and humiliation and Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for litigation expenses.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) in their version denies the Complainant to be a consumer on the ground that the Complainant has purchased the said vehicle TATA LPT for use of the same for commercial purpose, using of his vehicle for commercial purposes and as such the person so hiring of services is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> Further, the Opposite Parties contends that, the case is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party (financer) namely CITI CORP Finance. The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) in no way related neither to finance the said vehicle nor seized the vehicle on Dt.21/04/2008 by the instruction of CITI CORP Finance. The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) have taken a simple denial plea of all the allegation made by the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> In spite of sufficient notice, the Opposite Party No.4(four) did not make his appearance before the Forum as such Opposite Party No.4(four) set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint, version of the Opposite Parties and the copies of documents filed by the parties and find as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased the vehicle vide a hire purchase agreement from the Opposite Parties to earn his livelihood for his family. The explanation to the amendment Under Section 2(1) (d)(ii) provides that commercial purpose do not include use by a person of good bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In a case where goods purchased or services hired in activity is not directly intended to generate profit it would not be commercial purpose. In the present case, the Complainant has purchased the vehicle only for his self unemployment to earn his livelihood and not to generate profit and hence the Complainant is a consumer of Opposite Parties and the case is maintainable.<br /> <br /> It is the case of the Complainant that, without serving any prior notice or any due process of law, the Opposite Parties have forcibly took away the TATA LPT vehicle from the possession of the Complainant while he was going to Shriram Transport Finance Ltd for inspection alleging default of some monthly installment. The Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) and No.3(three) in their version has made a blanket denial plea with out adducing any evidence in support of their case. The Opposite Party No.4(four) did not like to contest the allegations made against him.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) in its version have made a blanket denial plea to the allegation made by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties contends that, they are no way related to finance the said vehicle and they are the collection agent of the financier, CITI CORP Finance Ltd., the Opposite Party No.4(four). Neither the Opposite Parties have filed any affidavit nor adduced any evidence to substantiate their case.<br /> <br /> To established his case, the Complainant has filed cash receipt Dt. 21/11/2007, letter Dt. 13/02/2008 issued by Magma Shrachi Finance Ltd., to the Senior Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., and xerox copy of certificate and Registration of certificate of fitness. On perusal of the documents it reveals that, Manager Shrachi Finance Ltd., the Opposite Party No.1(one) has received the equal monthly installment from the Complainant and in token of that he has issued a money receipt Dt. 26/11/2007 infavour of the Complainant. Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) has also informed vide letter Dt. 13/02/2008 to the Senior Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. ltd., about the foreclosure amount to be Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees seven lac)only till Dt. 25/02/2007 and requested to pay the foreclosure amount to the Opposite Party No.1(one). Several correspondence were also made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1(one). No any evidence is adduced by the Opposite Party No.1(one), No.2(two) and No.3(three) to prove that they are the collection agent of Opposite Party No.4(four). The Manager CITI CORP Finance Ltd., the Opposite Party No.4(four) did not like to contest the case and remain absent.<br /> <br /> There is no any evidence that any notice was given to the Complainant for repossessing the vehicle on account of default of payment of installments. The financer cannot take repossession of vehicle by force for which loan is advanced. The financer can take repossession of the vehicle in case, where the borrower may have committed default in payment of installment through proper procedure recognized by law in stead of taking resort to strong arm tactis. The repossession of the vehicle TATA LPT from the possession of the Complainant by force is illegal, arbitrary and criminal in nature.<br /> <br /> In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the Opposite Parties by forcible taking away the vehicle bearing No. OR-17-D-6725 from the possession of the Complainant without issuing any prior notice or any due process of law have committed serious deficiency in service. For such illegal act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was debarred to enjoy the vehicle by engaging himself to earn his livelihood from the date of repossession till date and suffered a great loss. So the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant for mental agony, harassment and humiliation he suffered before his neighbor, friends and relative.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed and ordered as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed, to release and hand over the vehicle TATA LPT bearing Regd. No. OR-17-D-6725 after receiving the unpaid equal monthly installment till the date of Order, pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac)only for mental agony, harassment and humiliation he suffered and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only for the litigation cost to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to intimate the amount of unpaid outstanding equal monthly installment due till date of this Order against the loan account of the vehicle with in 15(fifteen) days of this Order to the Complainant to enable him to deposit the rest amount. <br /> <br /> Further the Opposite Parties are directed, adjust the awarded amount with the unpaid balance equal monthly installments outstanding till the date of this Order against the loan account of the Complainant within 30(thirty) days hence or else 18%(eighteen) percent interest will be charge on the awarded amount till payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.