(Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member)
(1) This is an appeal filed by he original opponent against the order passed by the District Forum, Sangli in Consumer Complaint No.221/2004 decided on 28/02/2005. By allowing the complaint filed by the original complainant, the forum below directed the opponents to give possession of Bajaj Boxer Regd. No.MH 10 AB 2126 to the complainant. The forum below further directed to pay 1,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. Aggrieved by this order, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. filed this appeal.
(2) The complainant had taken vehicle loan from Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., opponent No.1 and had purchased Bajaj Boxer CT Regd. No. MH 10 AB 2126. According to he complainant, since he was in search of service for the month of June/July 2004, he could not deposit EMIs in the bank. On 14/04/2004, he deposited 3 installments and requested to represent three installments’ cheque for the encashment. Instead of doing so, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. sent muscle men and took away vehicle forcibly. On 27/08/2004, the opponent directed to the complainant to deposit the amount in cash and take away the vehicle. The complainant on 27/08/2004 went to the office of the opponent and tendered cash amount, but instead of accepting the same, the complainant was directed to deposit whole of the remaining installments (51 EMIs) immediately and then take back he vehicle. The complainant pleaded that before taking forcibly possession of the vehicle, Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. had not given any notice in advance. Hence, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponents. Hence, the complainant filed consumer complaint and claimed possession of the vehicle back having deposited the over-due installments. The complainant had asked `10,000/- for mental agony and 3,000/- for the costs. Opponents filed written version and contested the complaint. The opponents pleaded that as per the Hire purchase agreement, the complainant had not paid EMI and since he was defaulter, the opponent had right to take back the vehicle and sell it by auction. The opponents also pleaded that on finding that the complainant has defaulted to pay `3,416/- and penal interest `1,450/-, on 05/09/2004 the opponent forfeited the vehicle. The opponent pleaded that amount of `38,355/- is due from the complainant. Hence, the opponent pleaded to dismiss the complaint.
(3) Considering the document on record, the forum below was of the opinion that the installment was over due and the complainant had gone to the opponent’s office for depositing the same and instead of accepting the money, the opponent directed the complainant to deposit whole of the remaining installments (51 EMIs) immediately and then take back he vehicle. The forum below, therefore, held that Bajaj Auto Finance was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The forum held that taking the possession of the vehicle without due notice was bad in law as per the ruling mentioned by the forum in case of Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bengal, AIR 2004 Page No.46. The forum below, therefore, directed the opponents to give possession of Bajaj Boxer Regd. No.MH 10 AB 2126 to the complainant. The forum below further directed to pay 1,000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the original opponent.
(4) While filing the appeal, the appellant had filed stay application, but no steps were taken by the appellant to pursue the appeal. This appeal is lying unattended from 2005. The appellant also has not bothered to take circulation for getting first order passed. Therefore, on 25/08/2011, this matter was taken from sine-die list and placed before us for disposal. Intimation of that date was displayed on notice board and published on internet board of the Commission. On 25/08/2011, on finding that appellant as well as the respondent were absent, we directed office to issue notice informing next date of hearing i.e. 09/11/2011 to both the parties. Accordingly, on 29/10/2011, office issued notices to the parties. On 09/11/2011 i.e. today, the appellant as well as the respondent are absent. Therefore, we are deciding the matter on merit. On perusal of the documents, affidavits & pleadings on record, we find that the forum below has rightly passed the order. The complainant has committed default of 3 EMIs and before he was given opportunity, his vehicle was forcibly taken away. Hence, the complainant requested the opponent finance company to represent his three cheques which were already dishonoured, but instead of doing so vehicle was re-possessed and opponent directed the complainant to pay the entire due amount in their office. In the circumstances, the forum below held that the opponent was guilty of deficiency in service and directed the opponents to give immediate possession of the vehicle to the complainant and to pay `1,000/- as costs. In the circumstances, order passed by the forum below is just & proper and sustainable in law. Hence, the order.
ORDER
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) No order as to costs.
(3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 9th November, 2011.
