Per Hon’ble Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15/12/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in consumer complaint no.CC/10/230.
Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-
The complainant had purchased Swaraj Mazda vehicle by taking a loan from the opponent nos.1 & 2 of `6,50,000/-. EMI of loan was `17,978/- to be paid in 47 installments. The complainant contended that he has paid an amount of `4,50,233/- till 06/01/2010. The opponent nos.1&2 had informed him that an amount of `1,25,063/- was outstanding against him and hence they have repossessed the vehicle. The complainant alleged that the action of repossession of the vehicle is totally unlawful because they have not given the notice of repossession of the vehicle. The complainant further contended that he met the officers of the opponent nos.1&2 and they instructed him to pay `36,000/- for repossession of the vehicle and, accordingly, he had paid an amount of `36,000/- on 26/01/2010. Time limit of the repayment of loan is 05/04/2011 and he is ready to pay the outstanding loan amount upto the time limit under the Loan agreement. However, the opponent nos.1&2 have not considered his request and hence he filed consumer complaint contending that the opponent be directed to give possession of the vehicle and pay compensation of `1,83,500/- along with costs of the complaint.
The opponents have contested the complaint on the ground that the vehicle is purchased for the commercial purpose. They have advanced him the loan of `6,50,000/- and, accordingly, the complainant had executed Hypothecation Agreement on 08/05/2007. The loan was to be repaid in 47 installments of `17,978/- per month and the complainant was not paying the installments regularly. As the loan amount was outstanding against the complainant hence they have initiated process of recovery of the loan and, accordingly, they have issued a notice to the complainant. As the complainant failed to pay the outstanding amount as per the conditions of the Agreement, they have repossessed the vehicle. They have given sufficient opportunity to the complainant to repay the loan. However, complainant failed to repay the loan. Hence they have given a notice to the complainant before selling the vehicle. They further contended that they have sold the vehicle and the amount realized from the same was credited to his loan account. After sale of the vehicle the complainant issued them a notice intending to pay the loan amount. However, as the vehicle was already sold there is no question of returning the vehicle back. The opponents have denied that the complainant had paid the amount of `36,000/-. Therefore, opponent prayed that the complaint be dismissed along with cost of `10,000/- to the complainant for filing the false complaint.
District Consumer Forum after considering the complaint, written version of the opponents, the evidence filed by both the parties on affidavit and the pleading of advocates of both the parties came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency on the part of the opponents and dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 15/12/2010. It is against this order that the original complainant has filed this appeal.
We heard Advocate Mr.Nagraj Hoskeri for the appellant and Mr.Mannadiar-Advocate for the respondent.
Admittedly, the appellant had taken a loan of `6,50,000/- from opponent nos.1&2 for the purchase of the vehicle, which is a subject matter of the present appeal. Admittedly, there is Hypothecation Agreement dated 08/05/2007. Accordingly, the appellant is to pay a loan in 47 installments of `17,978/-. Conditions of the Hypothecation Agreement are binding upon both the parties. From perusal of the evidence it is evident that the appellant was in arrears of loan amount and the opponents have informed the same to the appellant. The respondent had filed extract of the loan account, loan recall notice, asset possession kit and presale letter. From perusal of the record it is seen that the cheque dated 08/01/2010 given by the appellant is bounced. It is further clear that on 12/01/2010 an amount of `1,07,085/- is due from the appellant and, accordingly, the respondents have issued a notice for the payment of the amount within 7 days. On the surrender letter dated 25/01/2010 there is signature of the appellant. Similarly, the opponents have sent presale letter to the appellant. The respondents have also given time to the appellant to clear the outstanding dues. As the appellant failed to pay the outstanding loan amount, the opponents have sold the vehicle for `3,55,000/- and the sale proceed was credited to the loan account of the appellant. Still an amount of `1,03,111/- is outstanding against the appellant. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that there is no deficiency on the part of the opponents.
District Consumer Forum after taking into consideration the facts of the case has passed an order dismissing the complaint. We do not find any substance or merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/ original complainant. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Order of the forum is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 31st January, 2012.
