BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Gurnam Singh s/o late Sh. Sawan Singh r/o House No.1695, New Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Service Ltd., SCO-3, Sector 26, Chandigarh, through its Manager/Representative.

2.      Devinder, Authorised representative of Mahindra Finance, SCO-3, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Vijay Guleria, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. G.S. Ahluwalia, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant purchased a Silver metallic colour  Qualis  after taking a loan of Rs.5 lacs (approximately) from OPs for which he signed some blank papers and few post dated cheques.   The loan was sanctioned for a period of 4½ years  having monthly instalment of Rs.12,320/- and the loan amount was paid directly to the dealer by the OPs.  He paid most of the instalments in cash.  On 20.4.2009 when he alongwith his family was returning home at about 6:00 p.m after leaving his maternal uncle from whom he had taken loan of Rs.50,000/-, OP-2 alongwith his musclemen followed him in two cars.  He had kept Rs.50,000/- alongwith another sum of Rs.45,000/- which he had borrowed from his friend in the dashboard of the vehicle.  The musclemen of the OPs overtook him, brought him down and forcefully took away the vehicle after threatening, abusing and assaulting him and his family.  He immediately rushed to the police and even complained to the SSP but no action was taken.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             In their written reply the OP-1 admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It has been denied that the complainant signed any blank papers.  It has been pleaded that the complainant knew that in the event of default in repayment of loan amount the answering OP was legally entitled to have possession of the financed vehicle.  It has been denied that the vehicle was illegally taken into possession as the same was taken into custody by OP-2 in the capacity of a Receiver on the basis of order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.  Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

3.             OP-2 filed his separate written taking almost similar pleas as were taken by OP-1 in their written reply. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             The Learned Counsel for the OP has placed on file Annexure R-1/2 which is the copy of the settlement working sheet in favour of the complainant. The Learned Counsel has argued that as per Annexure R-1/2 a sum of Rs.3,05,308/- was due from the complainant till 18.12.2009. He was in arrears of installment amounting to Rs.1,59,940/- and was to pay other charges, NET AFC, interest charges and cheque return charges totaling Rs.3,05,308/-.  The complainant has not placed on file any document to suggest if he made the payment of any amount after 19.12.2009 to repay the said arrears.  We are therefore of the opinion that this Forum cannot side with a defaulter who after obtaining loan from the OP is not repaying the installment therefrom. 

7.             It is not disputed by the OPs that the vehicle was taken into possession by them due to the complainant being in arrears of payment.  The Learned Counsel has referred to Annexure R-1/1 which is an order dated 26.03.2009 vide which Court of Shri Rakesh Tewari, Additional District Judge-19,  Central District, Room No. 30, Ground floor, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, appointed Shri Devinder Sharma OP-2 as receiver to take the vehicle in question in his possession from the possession of the respondent (i.e. complainant) and to keep the same in safe custody.  This order was passed on an application filed by the OP under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the said Court.  In pursuance of the said order the vehicle was taken into possession on 20.04.2009 as mentioned in the complaint Annexure C-36.  Since the vehicle has been taken into custody, in pursuance of the order passed by the Court, it cannot be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or an unfair trade practice.  The right to possession had been conferred on the OP through an agreement between the parties and if the said right is exercised by the OPs through the Court of law, no fault can be found with the same.

8.             The complainant has also placed on file Annexure C-1/A, which is the copy of an application moved by the complainant under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of Smt. Palwinderjit Kaur, Civil Judge Junior Division, U.T Chandigarh.  It shows that litigation is pending between the parties and if there is any dispute as to whether the OP is competent to take possession of the vehicle or not, the same can very well be decided in those proceeding.  No parallel proceeding can be initiated before this Forum.

9.           In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.