FORUM  FEROZEPUR.

QUORUM

                             President             :                                      Member               :         S.

                                                                  C.C. No.220 of 2011                 

                                                                  Date of Institution: 2.5.2011

                                                                  Date of Decision: 1.11.2011

Balwinder Kumar, aged 32 years, son of                                                    

                                                                                ....... Complainant

Versus

1.       , Opposite Tara  

2.       Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, S.C.O.1717, Sector 26-B, Madhya Chandigarh, Pin Code-160019.

3.       Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, MahindraTower,

                                                                             ........ Opposite parties

Complaint     Section   12  of

                                                                    *        *        *        *        *

PRESENT :

For the complainant                   :           

For opposite party No.1            :        

For opposite party No.2 & 3     :        

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\2//

                                            ORDER

SANJAY GARG, PRESIDENT:-

                   Complainant

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\3//

complainant. However, they assured that when the complainant would pay the due loan

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\4//

tractor to some other person. Even the opposite parties misbehaved with the complainant. So pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and also to return the tractor in question. The complainant is ready to pay the due loan   

2.                Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that a loan agreement was executed between the parties at the time of advancement of loan and the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said loan agreement. There is an Arbitration Clause in the said loan agreement and as such the matter is required to be referred to the Arbitrator. Even otherwise complex and intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\5//

with effect from 20.12.2010. Complainant defaulted in the repayment of the loan

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\6//

the amount in question and the opposite parties were compelled to sell the tractor in question for realization of its dues. One been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Opposite party No.2 and 3 have filed a separate written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that opposite party No.2 and 3 have no concern with the alleged transaction and the dispute, if any, is

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\7//

between the complainant and opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 and 3 are the manufacturer/seller of the tractor in question and have no concern with the loan taken by the complainant from opposite party No.1, which is a separate entity. been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.                Parties led evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the tractor in question was never surrendered by the complainant, but the same has been snatched by the

7.                The learned counsel for opposite party No.1 submitted that a Loan Agreement was executed by the complainant in

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\8//

party No.1 and even opposite party No.1 was within its right to take the tractor in question in case of default of loan

8.                Submissions have been considered.

9.                The complainant has pleaded that out of the total sale consideration, he had paid from his own pocket a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. However, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant has paid a sum  Rs.1,15,000/- as margin money. However, the fact is that the complainant had paid a considerable sum from his own pocket at the time of purchase of the tractor. Apart from that, he had paid finance charges etc. to opposite party No.1. Since the complainant is an agriculturist, so the loan

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\9//

the loan   opposite party No.1 does not seem to be plausible. A perusal of the surrender

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\10//

opposite party No.1 has written to the police authorities that the complainant has defaulted in the payment of

10.                  The vehicle was sold to some other person by opposite party No.1 without any intimation to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 was not the owner of the tractor in question and they were just the financers. A finance agreement is different from a hypothecation agreement. Reliance can be placed on an authority of the span >Tarun Haryana &

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\11//

P & H 98 and an authority of the New Delhi styled as iticorp The course left to the financer was to seek his remedy through the court of law. The use of force through iticorp New Delhi in CICI Bank versus has depreciated the practice of employing agma Leasing Limited Versus Bharat Singh 2007 (1) CLT 565, gave a general direction to the financers that they shall not take the possession of the vehicle forcibly by employing musclemen, but enforce this right through process of law and if they do so, they shall not only be proceeded against for criminal offence by the police, which shall be registered against the C.E.O. of the Company, but shall also be liable to pay to the consumer compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of two-wheeler

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\12//

and Rs.50,000/- in case of a car or any other vehicle for mental agony, emotional sufferings, insult and humiliation and physical harassment.

11.               Even the registration certificate of the vehicle, insurance policy, delivery form, service book etc. are still in possession of the complainant, which proves beyond doubt that the complainant had not voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. Had the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle, then the above said documents would have also been surrendered to

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\13//

of the complainant have some force. Opposite party No.1 not only has snatched the vehicle in question from the complainant, but has sold the same without any ownership vested with them and even without providing documents to the new purchaser. However, the complainant is required to be suitably compensated by opposite party No.1. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint and direct opposite party No.1 to pay back to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was contributed by the complainant from his own pocket at the time of purchase of the said tractor to the complainant for the mental agony, pain, harassment and torture suffered by the complainant at the hands of the employees of opposite party No.1. However, the complainant will be liable to hand over the registration certificate, insurance policy etc. and to sign the necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle in the name of the person to whom opposite party No.1 has sold the vehicle, after the receipt of the

C.C. No.220 of 2011                \\14//

above said amount from opposite party No.1. Orders

12.               Arguments in this complaint were heard on 20.10.2011 and the case was reserved for orders. Now the orders     

Announced

                     1.11.2011

                                                                                      (Sanjay                                                                                        President

                                                                                      (

                                                                                       Member