DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:444 of 2010] Date of Institution : 29.07.2010 Date of Decision : 09.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Naseeb Singh son of Sh. Hardev Singh, Age about 27 years resident of House No.7/1, Rajiv Colony, Sector 17, Panchkula. ---Complainant. V E R S U S 1. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, S.C.O. no.3, Sector 26, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 2. Branch Manager, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, S.C.O. no.3, Sector 26, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Sunil Narang, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. G. S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for OPs. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Naseeb Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following directions to OPs:- i) To release the vehicle to the complainant or in alternative, pay the entire amount of Rs.4,56,720/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of repossession. ii) To accept the balance amount in installments without imposing any penalty and other charges. iii) Not to sell/alienate the vehicle in question. iv) To pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; v) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. Admittedly, the complainant took a loan of Rs.3,30,000/- from OPs at the time of purchase of new vehicle (Bolero truck) bearing registration HR-68-8443. The said loan was to be repaid in 47 monthly equated installments of Rs.10,380/- each commencing from 01.07.2007. The total cost of the vehicle was Rs.4,56,720/- out of which, he paid a sum of Rs.1,31,000/- only from his own pocket. On 04.03.2009, the truck was repossessed by OP for non-payment of installments. According to the complainant, he had been paying the installments regularly till August 2008. He could not pay the subsequent installments after 01.09.2008 as his father became seriously ill. He was operated upon and huge money was spent on his treatment. It is averred that on 04.03.2009, some musclemen of OPs came to his house and forcefully took away the vehicle. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he requested the said musclemen of OPs not to take the possession of the vehicle and to produce the relevant documents for taking the possession of the vehicle. However, his request was not acceded to and the vehicle was forcibly taken into possession by them. It has further been pleaded that the complainant contacted the officials of OPs and expressed his willingness to regularize the account but to no avail. According to the complainant, no notice was ever served upon him before repossession of the vehicle. Thus according to the complainant, forcible repossession of the vehicle in such circumstances amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint. 3. On the other hand, the case of OPs is that the said vehicle was hypothecated with OP-Bank. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, OP-Bank had authority to take possession of the truck in case the installments are not paid regularly. According to OPs, the complainant was irregular in payment of the loan installments. It has further been pleaded by OPs that the possession of the vehicle was taken over by the receiver after following due procedure of law and as per the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by Additional District Judge-19, Central District, Delhi. According to OPs, further Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal was appointed as Arbitrator who vide his order dated 12.04.2010 directed the OPs to sell the said vehicle to the highest bidder by way of open auction. The vehicle was sold to one Pawan Chabra, who paid the highest bid of Rs.2,25,000/-. It has been pleaded that as per the Statement of Account (Annexure R-1), the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs.1,22,640/- only and after adjusting the bid amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, demand notice for recovery of the balance shortfall amount of Rs.2,93,370/- was sent to the complainant and his guarantor vide letter dated 30.6.2010. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. The case of the complainant is that he had been regularly paying the monthly installments of the loan up to 01.09.2008 and thereafter due to some family problem he could not pay the remaining installments. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle of the complainant was forcibly taken by the musclemen of OPs without following due procedure of law on 04.03.2009 when it was parked at his residence. 6. On the other hand, the contention of the OPs is that possession of the vehicle in question was taken over by the receiver appointed by the court of Sh. Rakesh Tiwari, Learned Additional District Judge-19, Central District, Delhi vide its order dated 20.02.2009. Therefore, there is no illegality in taking over the possession of the vehicle. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the OP has placed on record the copy of the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by Sh. Rakesh Tiwari, Learned Additional District Judge-19, Central District, Delhi. From the perusal of the said order dated 20.02.2009, it is evident that Mr. Randhir Yadav, authorised representative of the OP was appointed as a receiver and he was authorised to take possession of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances, the vehicle in question was taken into possession in accordance with law. 7. As regards the subsequent sale of the vehicle in question, the bid was conducted after due publication as ordered by the arbitrator. For the reasons best known to the complainant, he did not participate in the bid. The vehicle was sold to the highest bidder. The amount, so recovered, has been adjusted against the outstanding loan. OPs have the right to do so. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs. 8. Ratio of the cases titled as Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S.Vijaylaxmi reported in III(2007) CPJ-161 (NC) and Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, 2007(2) ACJ-088 (SC) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the cases cited above, the vehicles were re-possessed without any order/authority of any court/competent authority. 9. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs. 10. In view of the above findings, the complaints is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 9th September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.444 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 06.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 09.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
