DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, ROPAR

        Parminder Singh son of S. Ajit Singh, R/o 188-A, Shastri Nagar, Ludhiana-141 001.

                              ............ Complainant

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Mahindra 86 Mahindra, Ludhiana Smart Branch, G.T. Road, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana.
2. Mahindra 86 Mahindra Financial Services, 4th Floor, MahindraTowers, Dr. G.M. Bhosale Marg, P.K. Kurne Chowk, Worli,Mumbai-400 018, through its Managing Director / Chairman /President/Authorised Manager).

                                           ........... Opposite Parties

Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Old).

QUORUM:

Shri S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. Ranvir Kaur, Member

Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Member

Present:-

For the complainant         : Shri Parminder Singh (In Person).

For the opposite parties: None.

ORDER

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection A t, 1986 (old) for issuance of following directions to the OPs:-

2. To pay Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh and Ten Thousands only), as compensation, for mental harassment, mental pan, mental torture 86 agony along with 24% interest from the date of taking Maruti Ritz car from his house;

2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased vehicle Maruti Ritz VDI having Chassis No.479 I 19, Engine No.5024471 Colour Superior White, vide Invoice dated 18.3.2014 for total sale consideration of Rs.5,50,994/. The complainant availed loan for the purchase of the said vehicle from the Ludhiana Office of the OPs and the deal was struck through their Manager Shri Deepjeet Singh. The complainant continuously paid his instalments without any break. Due to some unavoidable financial problems, the complainant could not able to pay three instalments and thereafter when a meeting was conducted between the complainant and OPs a deal was struck. The deal was that the complainant will pay the pending balance of the instalments, which were defaulted in three instalments and rest of the loan instalments will continue for the rest of the period as such. The complainant paid one instalment adhering to the said agreement. It is averred that thereafter when the complainant was not at home, the Manager of the OPs along with 3 goon's type person came to the house of the complainant and forcibly took his vela' ewithout his permission. The complainant protested against the illegal action and asked the officials of the opposite parties to return back the vehicle and he is ready to pay the pending amount as per the Agreement but they stuck back to their illegal and arrogant stand and gave no relief to the complainant. Due to this illegal act of the respondents/OPs the complainant suffered immense mental harassment, mental agony and mental torture. The complainant issued legal notice through his counsel to the respondents/ OPs through registered A.D. on 19.12.2017 but they never gave any reply. Alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents/OPs the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to them.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement. It is admitted that the complainant had availed the loan for the purchase of the said vehicle. It is, however, submitted that the complainant himself willfully and deliberately breached the terms and conditions of the Agreement and stopped making the payment of the loan amount to the OPs. In fact, the complainant was under obligation to pay the EMIs on its due dates, whereas the complainant had stopped making the payment of the loan amount. As a matter of fact, on 8.9.2017 Jaspal Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant had surrendered the vehicle on behalf of the complainant. The letter of surrender was signed by Jaspal Singh brother-in law of the complainanat had surrendered the vehicle on behalf of the complainant.The letter of surrender was signed by Jaspal Singh on behalf of the complainant complainant to the opposite parties that he was unable to pay the instalments of loan due to his financial crisis. He furthersubmitted that he wanted to surrender the vehicle to the opposite parties due to the inability to clear the dues. Later on, on 15.9.2017 the complainant was sent one written communication at his correct address through registered post intimating him about the further proceedings of sale of the vehicle in open auction. In the meanwhile, the complainant was invited to clear his dues and to take the possession of the vehicle after settling the account but the complainant never stepped further and did not make the payment. Therefore, the opposite parties had to sell off the vehicle in question in open auction. Since the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant, the story presented by the complainant of snatching the vehicle with use of force is all false and not worth belief. Denying all other averments made in the complaint and denying any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A and documents i.e. copy of Invoice dated 18.3.2014 as Ex.C-1, copy of Sale Certificate as Ex.C-2, copy of Certificate of Insurance cum Policy Schedule as Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account as Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice dated 19.12.2017 as Ex.C-5, copy of postal receipt as E C­6 and copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.C-7.

5. On the other hand, the respondents/ OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of their Manager (Legal), Anurag Sharma as Ex. RA and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R12.
6. Heard. The entire record has been perused.
7. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Maruti Ritz car, vide Invoice dated 18.3.2014 (Ex.C-1) by getting it financed for an amount of Rs.4,67,000/- from OPs, vide Loan Agreement, Ex.R-12. The EMI of the loan was Rs.11,000/- and the tenure of the same was for five years. The repayment period was from 24.3.2014 to 15.12.2019. No doubt initially the complainant paid the said EMI of Rs.11,000/- to the OPs regularly, which is discernible from the statement of account of the complainant, Ex.C-4, and upto 15.10.2016 there was not even a single default. However, thereafter the complainant stopped making payment of EMIs may be due to financial crisis.
8. A settlement dated 22.8.2017, Ex.R-1, regarding the outstanding loan amount was arrived at between the complainant and the OPs. A perusal of the same reveals that the complainant purchased two vehicles, one Hyundai Eon and the other Maruti Ritz, after obtaining loan from Mahindra Finance Ltd. i.e. OPs. The complainant himself admitted that he had not paid 6 instalments of Hyundai Eon and 11 instalments of Maruti Ritz (Rs.1,21,000/-) upto 22.8.2017. He promised to deposit three instalments in respect of both the vehicles upto 28.8.2017. He further promised that in case he fails to deposit these instalmets, then, he will surrender both the vehicles to the Company and the Company may recover its amount by selling the same. He further promised not to take any legal action against the Company. Thesaid settlement has been signed by the complainant, Parminder Singh and one Tejinder Kaur and the authorized signatory of the OPs. A perusal of Surrender Letter dated 8.9.2017, Ex.R-2, reveals that the complainant surrendered Maruti Ritz car bearing Registration No.PB-10-EL(T)-3386 to the OPs through one Jaspal Singh i.e. brother-in-law of the complainant. The custody of the said vehicle was taken over by one Ram Chander, an employee of the OPs, vide Ex.R-3. The OPs again sent a notice dated 15.9.2017 to the complainant calling upon him to clear the entire loan amount due under the loan agreement within seven days from the date of said notice towards full and final discharge in respect of the above vehicle under the Loan Agreement. It was also made clear to him that if he fails to do so, they shall be constrained to sell of the said vehicle and appropriate the sale proceeds towards thereceivable amount under the said Loan Agreement and in case of any shortfall after such appropriation, they reserved their right to recover the same from him as per law. The complainant was also informed to contact their local branch for details of his account and the amount in arrears. However, the complainant failed to respond. Accordingly the said vehicle was put on auction and was sold for Rs.2,05,000/- to one Hitesh Kumar, vide Affidavit -Indemnity Bond dated 27.11.2017, Ex.R-6. As per contract Settlement Sheet dated 2.12.2017, Ex.R8, the total outstanding amount against the said loan was Rs.3,61,445/- and after adjusting the amount of the sale proceeds of the said vehicle amounting to Rs.2,05,000/-, there was shortfall of Rs.1,56,445/-.

9.So far as the contention of the complainant that he never authorized Jaspal Singh his brother-in-law to surrender the vehicle in question to the OPs is concerned, there is no substance in the same. This contention of the complainant cannot be accepted on the ground that firstly said Jaspal Singh is brother-in-law of the complainant and secondly, the complainant did not take any action against him. The complainant has not even made him a party in the present complaint. The net result is that Jaspal Singh, brother-in-law of the complainant handed over the vehicle in question to the OPs with the consent of the complainant. Moreover, as discussed above, the documents show that the complainant himself stated that he will not be able to make the payment and will surrender the vehicle to the OPs. Hence, the complainant cannot wriggle out of his own wrongs and now claim the said car back as the same had already been sold.

10. From the above, the story put forth by the complainant in the present complaint regarding snatching of the vehicle in question by the goon's type persons of the OPs stands fully falsified. In fact, the complainant himself was a defaulter in making payment of the EMIs of the vehicle in question and when he was unable to repay the loan amount, he himself got surrendered the vehicle to the through his brother-in-law Jaspal Singh. The complainant was playing with the system We fail to understand as to how the complainant comes under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. In these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service or adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.