MRS.RAJASHREE AGARWALLA,MEMBER:-
Deficiency in service in respect of illegal repossession of complainant’s vehicle are the allegations arrayed against Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant being an unemployed youth and to maintain his livelihood purchased a Bolero Plus being financed by OP-Finance Company i.e. Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. by executing an agreement bearing No.XVPPPAR0000059179. The complainant had availed a finance of Rs.5,03,984/- and the Registration number of vehicle is OD-29-1717. The complainant was paying the EMIs and an amount of Rs.1,95,850/- is pending as overdue installments upon the complainant. The said vehicle has been seized by the musclemen of Ops on dtd.25.01.2016 and kept under the open sky. Complainant challenges the seizure as illegal prays this Forum to declare the seizure as illegal and to release vehicle and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed the Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel Mr. R.K.Sahoo and filed written statement into the dispute challenging the maintainability of the complaint and submitting the facts, it is stated that Ops financed an amount of Rs.5,03,984/- to the complainant to purchase a Bolero Plus by executing a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement No. XVPPPAR0000059179. As per the agreement it was agreed between the parties to clear up the loan in 47 nos. EMI starting from dtd.01.01.2013 to dtd.01.11.2016. The repayment schedule is marked as Annexure-A. Complainant knowing the terms and conditions of agreement did not pay the EMIs regularly and became defaulter for which a final call letter was issued by Regd. Post with AD on dtd.07.01.2014. When complainant did not respond the final call letter Ops by giving intimation to pre and post seizure to Police Station seized the vehicle on dtd. 16.01.2014. It is further stated that after seizure Ops issued a presale a notice on dtd.18.01.2014 by Regd. Post with AD responding the letter complainant deposited Rs.80,000/- and the vehicle was released. Thereafter complainant did not prefer to make the repayments accordingly the vehicle was seized on dtd.25.01.2015 a Inventory list(Annexure-B) was prepared and pre post intimation letter was given to police on dtd.25.01.2015(Annexure-C). Further a presale notice was issued to complainant by Regd. Post with AD. When the Complainant remained silent and after valuation of the vehicle by approved valuer sold the vehicle on dtd.16.02.16 at a price of Rs.3 lakhs which was deposited in complainant’s account and the deficit amount was intimated to the complainant. In the para wise reply it is stated that the vehicle was used by the Co-borrower for commercial purpose(Annexure-E) Ops in the para wise reply in addition to the show cause challenges the maintainability of the complaint and submits that the complainant-borrower is a regular defaulter as per the statement of loan account(Annexure-F). It is prayed in the written statement that the complainant has foisted a false and frivolous case against the Ops which deserves to be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the complaint on merit as complainant is remaining absent after date of admission and Ld. Counsel for the Ops. It is an admitted fact that complainant by availing a loan of Rs.5,03,984/- from OP-Finance Company purchased a Bolero Plus bearing Regd. No.OD-29-1717. An agreement was signed between the parties with terms and conditions in relation to finance of the vehicle. It is further admitted that the vehicle had been repossessed by the Ops for default of outstanding dues. In the complaint petition, it is alleged that the vehicle was illegally seized by the Ops for pending arrear outstanding of Rs.1,95,850/-. On the other hand as per written version and submission of Ld. Counsel for Ops, the complainant-loanee is a chronic defaulter and a huge outstanding was pending towards the loan dues. After giving opportunities and completion of legal formalities Ops repossessed the vehicle of the complainant for which the OP-Finance Company is entitle as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. In support of their respective claims complainant filed statement of loan account, copy of the inventory and registration certificate of the vehicle. Ops filed the documents as annexure reflected in the written statement. The documents presented before us it is clear that an arrear outstanding is pending against the finance of the vehicle. Further on the date of repossession the vehicle the OP-Finance Company has intimated the concerned police station regarding seizure of the vehicle(Annexure-C series). After repossession of the vehicle Ops also issued a pre-sale notice(Annexure-D) by Regd. Post with AD. When the pre-sale notice was unresponded the vehicle was sold. Considering the submissions and examination of documents/annexures, we are of the opinion that Ops have repossessed the vehicle after observing the legal formalities and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The repossession of the vehicle as alleged by the complainant can not be treated as deficiency in service. The maintainability of the complaint as raised by the Ops are formal in nature. Further, the interim direction passed in I.A.Case No.8/2016 is hereby vacated. If any amount is deposited in connection to the interim direction same is to be adjusted in the loan account of the complainant, if not adjusted earlier.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced today in the open Court this 31stth day of August,2016.
