MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 20.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 128 of 2010.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant purchased one Tourister 29+1 STR Bus bearing Engine No.BH44K38491 and Chassis No.MA1GF2BCD43K83923 from Swami Auto Sales, authorized dealer of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 26, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh for Rs.6,91,151/-. It was submitted that the complainant got financed the above said bus from the OPs for a sum of Rs.6 lacs in May, 2005. The complainant kept on paying her monthly installments till January, 2008 but due to certain personal problems, the complainant could not pay her monthly installments for the month of February & March, 2008. The OPs did not give any chance whatsoever to the complainant to make the payment of her above said installments. It was further submitted that in the end of March, 2008, without giving any notice, the OPs sent some of their Goonda elements to the house of complainant’s driver namely Sh.Bhag Singh in his Village Alampur, District Ropar at about 12.00 in the midnight and without giving any warning, the OPs forcibly took the possession of the said bus from the driver of the complainant without her knowledge. The complainant was using the said bus for earning her livelihood from the same but the above said irresponsible, illegal, wrongful and sudden act of the OPs, resulted into not only loosing her bus but also her contract with the school, which also deprived her of the means of livelihood and goodwill, without any fault of her. It was next submitted that the complainant approached the OPs numerous times and even offered to deposit the requisite amount after adjusting the loan account with the OPs but the OPs failed to give her any positive reply and kept on lingering on the matter by giving vague and irrelevant replies and even did not return the above said bus. It was further submitted that the complainant came to know from certain reliable sources that the OPs might to try to sell off her bus. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 6.7.2009 to the OPs, but to no avail. The above said act of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OPs wherein they admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was pleaded that she had got the bus financed from the OPs in the sum of Rs.6 lacs on 26.4.2005 and, thereafter, the complainant failed to maintain financial discipline of her loan account as a result whereof it went into default. It was further stated that the complainant assured that she would try to arrange the funds but she failed to do so. It was next stated that the complainant failed to deposit any sum towards the arrears outstanding in her loan account. Hence, they were constrained to sell the above said vehicle in order to recover the loan amount dues. All other material allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

4.         The parties led their evidence in support of their case.

5.         The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as the complainant was not able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the complainant filed an appeal. 

7.         We have heard Sh.P.S.Sarna, Advocate for the appellant, Sh.G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents and perused the record, carefully.

8.         As per the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant failed to repay installments for the months of February and March, 2008 but at the same time, for this reason, the OPs instead of giving any further opportunity to the complainant to repay the defaulted EMIs just sent their Goondas to the house of the driver of the complainant at about 12.00 at night, who forcibly snatched the keys and illegally took away the bus from the premises of the driver. After knowing this incidence, the complainant approached the OPs and offered to deposit the remaining requisite amount but the OPs purposely did not let the complainant to know that what amount she had to deposit with the OPs. Further it was contended that the complainant never surrendered the bus voluntarily as alleged by the OPs, rather the surrender letter dated 15.7.2008 (Annexure R-1) was a forged and fabricated document. It was further contended that either the signatures of the complainant on this document are fictitious or the same might have been obtained by cheating her. It was further contended that the complainant was not aware of the fact that the OPs have sold the school bus and that too at a very low price. Hence, this act of OPs amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

9.       The learned counsel for the respondents/OPs argued that the complainant failed to deposit the EMIs well in time and she had also shown her inability to deposit the same. For this reason, the complainant voluntarily surrendered the bus to the OPs regarding which, the complainant had also issued a surrender letter (Annexure R-1), which is duly placed on the record. Subsequently, after taking the possession of the bus from the complainant, in order to recover their remaining amount, the OPs lawfully sold the above said bus by way of auction on 3.10.2008. It was further submitted that the OPs adopted a legal procedure to recover the remaining amount due from the complainant. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

10.     After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the Counsel for the parties,  we are of the considered opinion that it was the complainant who was at fault by not paying the remaining instalments of loan. The complainant categorically stated that due to some financial constraints, she was unable to pay the EMIs for the months of February and March, 2008. The complainant, no doubt, denied that she signed any surrender letter. She also stated that this surrender letter was a forged and fabricated document. However, the perusal of the evidence, on record clearly proves that R-1 Surrender Letter, was signed by the complainant. No convincing evidence to the contrary was produced by the appellant/complainant. Even there is no material, on the record, that to prove that the surrender letter was a forged and fabricated document. Even the complainant failed to prove that her signatures were obtained on blank paper and the same was later on converted into surrender letter R-1.  Moreover, in the absence of any affidavit of the driver, the contention of the complainant regarding the snatching of the bus is also not believable. It is a matter of common knowledge that in auction the second hand vehicle, like the one, in this case, could fetch very low price, for a variety of reasons. We have, thus, come to the conclusion, that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency, in service, or unfair trade practice, on the part of the OPs. The order passed by the District Forum, thus, does not suffer from any illegality warranting the interference of this Commission. 

11.     In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed and the order passed by the learned District Forum is upheld. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 

12.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 Pronounced.                                                                        

1^st April, 2011.