JUDGMENT 3.12.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 29.6.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.285/2010 was dismissed. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant took a loan of Rs.2,92,780/- from OPs for purchase of a Tata Indica DLE car bearing Registration No.CH-03-U-3281 which was repayable in 60 equal installments of Rs.6,520/- each. He was paying the installments regularly and out of repayable amount of Rs.3,91,200/- he had already repaid Rs.3,35,590/- and only an amount of Rs.55,610/- was left which he was ready and willing to pay. However, on 20.3.2010 the musclemen of the OPs forcibly took the keys of the car from his son and also threatened him of dire consequences and as such he had to suffer a lot of mental and physical harassment. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs the complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking possession of the vehicle besides compensation of Rs.80,000/- and costs etc.. 3. On the other hand, OPs contested the complaint and filed reply inter-alia stating therein that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in repayment of the loan availed by him and as such the loan account of the complainant became Non Performing Asset. The total outstanding loan dues recoverable by OPs from the complainant as on 8.6.2010 was Rs.1,07,750/-. OPs then filed petition Under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the court of Mr.Ravi Kumar,ADJ, Chandigarh. The said court by way of interim order dated 15.3.2010 appointed one Mr.Jaswinder Singh as Receiver directing him to take the possession of the said vehicle and to keep the same in same condition till further order. Accordingly the vehicle in question was taken into possession by the Receiver Mr. Jaswinder Singh from the residence of the complainant in compliance with the order dated 15.3.2010. It was pleaded that the vehicle was legally taken into custody and there was no use of musclemen by the OPs. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing counsel for parties came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was taken into possession by the Receiver after adopting due process of law and there was no unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed being without any merit. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal. 5. When the case was fixed for hearing arguments, none appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant. We have heard learned counsel for the respondents/OPs and gone through the file carefully. The main ground urged in the grounds of appeal is that the vehicle was forcibly snatched from the son of complainant and Jaswinder Singh neither gave any notice, nor shown any orders of the Hon’ble court. It was further urged that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other courts of India have deprecated the procedure of snatching the vehicle forcibly but still OPs had taken the possession of the vehicle by using the force. The learned counsel for respondent repelled the aforesaid points. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the OPs had filed a petition Under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act in the matter of loan advanced to the complainant for purchase of Tata Indica DLE bearing No.CH-03-U-3281 but the complainant defaulted in making payment of certain installments and as such OPs filed petition and the court of Additional District Judge, Chandigarh appointed Receiver vide order dated 15.3.2010 to take possession of the vehicle and to keep the same in the same condition in which it was taken till further orders. OPs have also placed on file affidavit of Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Receiver who took the vehicle into his custody in the capacity of Receiver and Annexure C-4 is copy of the inventory of items of vehicle given to the complainant at the time of taking possession of the vehicle. The arbitration proceedings initiated by OPs which are pending before the civil court are yet to be decided and complainant could pursue that proceedings. All this goes a longway to show that the vehicle was taken into possession by resorting to the recognized procedure of law . 7. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme court and other courts have deprecated the process of forcible repossession of vehicle by using illegal and unauthorized means. But in the instant case OPs have approached the competent court for taking possession of the vehicle from complainant for default of his making payment of installments. It appears that the complainant is under mistaken belief that the procedure resorted to by OPs is not recognized by law. In such cases, a loan agreement/hire purchase agreement is executed between the parties and the vehicle is hypothecated as security against the loan advanced and under the agreement the bank/financial institution had the right to seize the vehicle to ensure the compliance with the terms of the hire purchase agreement by adopting recognized legal procedure. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 passed by the learned District Forum dismissing the complaint and the same is accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | | 
