STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.102 of 2011)

Gopal Singh s/o Sh. Ram Nath r/o H.No.13A, Gurdaspur Colony, Maloya, Chandigarh. C/o 258, Phase I, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

….…Appellant.

                                      V E R S U S

1.                 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., through its Managing Director, having its Corporate office at 2nd Floor, Sadhana House, 570, PB Marg Worli, Mumbai.

2.                 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., through its Zonal Manager at SCO No.3, First Floor, Madhya Marg, Sector 26D, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Ms. Punisha Thakur, Adv. for appellant

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.                           The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased an auto rickshaw for Rs.1,24,027/- for earning his livelihood.  He deposited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- was financed by the OPs (now respondents) which was to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs.3,910/- p.m starting from 28.10.2006 till 28.9.2009. The complainant kept on paying the installments in time. Thereafter, he wanted to increase his earnings.  He got one more auto rickshaw financed, through the same process, having monthly installment of Rs.3,913/-, spreading over 36 months, starting from 11.4.2007 till 11.3.2010. The complainant kept on paying the installments, of both the auto rickshaws, till March 2009.  However, in March 2009, the agents of the OPs, informed him that there was some confusion.  When the complainant went to the office of OP-2, he was shocked to hear that Rs.25,000/- were due against him but they did not give any account statement to him.  On 8.7.2009, certain hooligans of the OPs stopped his auto rickshaw, took away the keys, and drove away the said auto rickshaw. On 9.7.2009, when the complainant alongwith his wife and niece was coming from General Hospital, Chandigarh, some hooligans, alongwith the officials of the OPs, stopped his other auto rickshaw and drove away the same after throwing them away.  The OPs were contacted by the complainant.  They were asked to submit the statement of account, regarding the amount due, against the complainant, but they told that the vehicles had already been sold.  It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also causing financial and mental harassment.  It was further stated that the OPs also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed.

3.                           The OPs, in their written reply, admitted that the complainant purchased two auto rickshaws, referred to above, and got financed the same through them.  It was also admitted that he was to make payment of installments, towards the price of these auto rickshaws. It was stated that the complainant paid few installments of the loan, and thereafter stopped making payment.  It was further stated that the statement of account was supplied to the complainant but even then he did not regularize his account. It was further stated that since the complainant was unable to make payment of installments, in respect of both the auto rickshaws, he voluntarily surrendered the same on 9.7.2009. After surrender, the OPs again requested the complainant, to deposit the arrears and take back the vehicles but he failed to do so.  It was further stated that after waiting for the requisite period, the OPs were constrained to sell the said vehicles on 21.8.2009 in favour of Balkar Singh of Ambala City for Rs.35,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively. It was further stated that after adjustment of the sale proceeds, the OPs sent notices of shortfall dated 25.8.2009 demanding an amount of Rs.66,326/- and Rs.41,402/- in both the loan cases to the complainant, but instead of paying the same, he filed the complaint.  It was denied that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, to the complainant.  It was also denied that they indulged into unfair trade practice.  It was also denied that any act of the OPs caused any physical harassment or mental agony, to the complainant.  The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.                           After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion, that since the complainant was unable to pay the remaining installments, towards the price of the auto rickshaws, which were financed by him, through the OPs, he himself surrendered the vehicles and gave the surrender letters voluntarily.  It was further concluded by the District Forum that even after surrender of the vehicles, notices were given by the OPs, to the complainant, to pay the remaining installments, and take away the vehicles, but to no avail.  It was further concluded by the District Forum that, under these circumstances, there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs nor did they indulge into unfair trade practice.  

5.                           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

6.                           We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the record of the case, which was received from the District Forum, carefully. 

7.                           The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant was making payment of installments. She further submitted that he had paid the amount towards the price of both the vehicles, by way of installments, to a substantial extent. She further submitted that there was some dispute, between the parties, regarding the settlement of accounts, and when the complainant demanded the statement of account, from the OPs, they failed to do so. She further submitted that the complainant never surrendered the vehicles, nor gave any surrender letter to the OPs.    She further submitted that these surrender letters might have been taken by the OPs, at the time of taking loan, by the complainant. She further submitted that, on the other hand, the hooligans of the OPs, as also their officials, illegally repossessed the vehicles.  She further submitted that, under these circumstances, the District Forum was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, by the OPs, and they did not indulge into unfair trade practice.  She further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

8.                           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion, that he appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that, in the first instance, one autorickshaw was purchased by the complainant/appellant for a sum of Rs.1,24,027/- for earning his livelihood, and he paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as down payment and the remaining amount of Rs. One lac was financed by the OPs.  It is also not disputed that another auto rickshaw was purchased, by the complainant, which was also financed by the OPs.  Undisputedly, the complainant, made payment of some installments, in respect of both the loans, upto March 2009.  Thereafter, the installments were not paid by the complainant.  It is to be seen as to whether the vehicles were illegally repossessed by the OPs or the same were surrendered by the complainant himself.  R-1 is the letter dated 9.7.2009, surrendering vehicle No.PB 65F 9940 and R-2 is the letter dated 9.7.2009 vide which the vehicle bearing No.PB 65E 3619 was surrendered in favour of the OPs by the complainant.  Both these letters bear the signatures of the complainant.  These letters were duly set up, in the written statement by the OPs.  However, no rejoinder was filed by the complainant, denying the execution of these letters.  Even, no plea, was taken by the complainant, in the complaint, that these letters did not bear his signatures.  There is not even a whisper, in the complaint, that these surrender letters, were obtained, by the OPs, at the time of financing the vehicles. 

9.                           In letter R-1, it was in clear-cut terms stated by the complainant that he was in financial constraints and, therefore ,was unable to pay the remaining amount to the extent of Rs.44,687/- overdue against him, in respect of Piaggio bearing registration No.PB65F 9940. He further stated, in this letter, that on account of his inability, he was voluntarily surrendering the vehicle. It was also mentioned in this letter that he be given seven days time to pay of the dues and take back the vehicle. It was further stated, in this letter, that in case, he failed to pay the amount overdue, within the time stipulated, then the Financer shall be at liberty, to sell the vehicle and adjust the sale proceeds, towards the overdue loan amount. Similar are the contents of R-2, surrender letter dated 09.07.2009, except that the number of the vehicle mentioned therein, is PB65E-3619, and amount overdue is shown as Rs.48,734/-. Vide notices R-4 and R-5 dated 25.08.2009, the complainant was informed by the OPs that in accordance with the agreement, he failed to make the payment of installments towards price of the vehicles. It was further intimated by these notices, to the complainant, that under these circumstances, the OPs had no option, than to sell the vehicles. It was also intimated vide these letters that in respect of vehicle No. PB65F-9940, after adjusting the sale proceeds thereof, a shortfall of amount of Rs.66,326/-, was still due and a sum of Rs.41,402/- after adjusting the sale proceeds of vehicle No.PB65E-3619 was also still due as a shortfall against the complainant. Under these circumstances, the submission  of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant to the effect that as to what was the necessity of issuing these notices on 25.08.2009, if the surrender letters Annexure R-1 and R-2 dated 09.07.2009, had already been submitted by the complainant, and the vehicles had already been surrendered, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.  The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that there was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice in any manner.  The District Forum was also right, in holding that the vehicles, were not illegally repossessed by the OPs.

10.                       The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

11.                       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

Pronounced.

19^th May, 2011.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

hg