DATE OF FILING : 01.04.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 15.06.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 22.06.2016.
Punam Devi,
wife of late Rashu Varma,
24, Ramdhan Ghosh Lane, P.O. Belur Math, P.S. Belur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711202. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
- M/s. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited,
Date House, 2, N.S.C. Bose Road, Parrys,
Chennai 600001.
- M/S. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited,
32, Chowringhee Road, OM Towers, 5th floor,
Kolkata 700071.……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Punam Devi, against the o.ps., M/S. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited praying for an order as the Forum deem fit and proper.
- The case of the petitioner is that she is a widow housewife residing at 24, Ramdhan Ghosh Lane, Post and P.S. Belur, as a premises tenant for more than three generations. She lives with her four sons and one daughter and purchased one TATA ACE MINI LCU ( four wheelers ) with registration no. WB 11A / 9435 after selling all her ornaments and valuable belongings and using her available sources. The petitioner approached the o.ps. as financer of his vehicle and the o.ps. granted Rs. 1,10,000/- on the basis of an agreement between the parties that the loan would be repaid by 36 equal monthly installments and the petitioner paid in cash the said installments being a sum of Rs. 1,18,940/-. In the month of October 7th , 2013 the o.ps. illegally and forcibly took away the vehicle of the petitioner with the help of antisocial elements without intimation to the petitioner and the petitioner went to the Belur P.S. and lodged the complaint. On 08.10.2013 the petitioner went to the branch office of the o.p. and had discussion with the general manager and requested him to handover the said vehicle and she also told the o.ps. to purchase the vehicle if it is sold by them at a price of Rs. 2,60,000/-. But surprisingly the o.ps. sold the vehicle to outsiders at a cost of Rs. 40,000/- only and intimated the same to the petitioner asking her to pay Rs. 45,450/- as balance due amount. The petitioner sent a letter on 03.02.2015 and narrated all the facts to the o.ps. in respect of such illegal acts on the part of the o.ps. in taking away the vehicle on 07.10.2013 assigning no reason which was nothing but a gross violation of agreement of loan despite petitioner paid Rs. 1,18,940/- against her loan of Rs. 1,10,000/-. Thus, the petitioner filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations made against them and submitted that there was loan agreement between the petitioner and the o.ps. on 07.12.2011 and as per agreement the petitioner was to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly installments but actually the installments were 35. The o.ps. further stated the petitioner did not comply the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and so the o.ps. possessed the said vehicle from the petitioner and they sold the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement as the petitioner failed to pay the due amount before the o.ps. The petitioner has no primafacie case and the present case is liable to be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip off reiteration. In support of her case, the petitioner filed affidavit along with documents stating that there was hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and the o.ps. and as per terms and conditions of the agreement the petitioner was supposed to repay the loan amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 5,365/-. The o.p. filing written version denied the allegations made against them stating that they not only illegally repossessed the vehicle and but also sold the same and on the other hand they submitted that as per terms of agreement they possessed the vehicle as the petitioner could not repay the loan and they sold the vehicle. Thus the case of the petitioner be dismissed.
6. This Forum heard the ld. counsel for both sides and it is noticed from the documents that the petitioner, Punam Devi, took loan of Rs. 1,30,000/- though in her petitioner she submitted that she took loan of Rs. 1,10,000/-. However, it is noticed from the case of the petitioner that she paid a sum of Rs. 1,18,940/- and the o.ps., financer, illegally and arbitrarily repossessed the vehicle and sold the same. Even though she submitted before the financier that she would take part in the sale of the vehicle and would pay Rs. 2,60,000/- for purchasing the vehicle but her claim was denied by the financier who sold the same vehicle in just Rs. 40,000/- and again claiming Rs. 45,450/- from this petitioner.
7. From the loan agreement, it is clear that it is hire purchase agreement and the hire purchaser being a consumer filed this case. However, our National Commission in the case of Promod Kumar vs. Sriram Transport [( III ) 2012] CPJ page 553 opined that the finance company is well within its right to seize the vehicle taken on hire purchase agreement as the purchaser defaulted in payment of installments. Our Supreme Court also opined that in the case of hire purchase agreement the financer has the right to take possession of vehicle in the event of non payment of installments by the hire purchaser and such re-possession is not illegal. In the case of Tilak Singh vs. Satya Deo Tripathi our Supreme Court opined that under the hire purchase agreement, the financer is the real owner of the vehicle and there cannot be any allegation against him for having the possession of the vehicle. The same view is reiterated by our National Commission as well as our Apex Court in good number of decisions as in the case of Magma Leasing Ltd. vs. Bharat Singh 2012 CPJ vol. III page 662.
8. In the instant case also the petitioner entered into a hire purchase agreement with the o.ps. and she was to pay 36 monthly installments which was to start from 01.01.2012 but no document has been placed by her that she had paid the amount of Rs. 1,18,940/- to the o.p. as claimed by her. She could have placed the receipt of making such payment or the statement of account of his bank showing such payment in favour of the o.ps. One statement in detail was placed before this Forum by the petitioner which is not authentic and believable. Thus in view of the decision of our National Commission as well as Supreme Court this Forum finds no reason to pass any order in favour of the petitioner who also sought for no concrete relief before this Forum and left the matter to the Forum as it deem fit and proper and this Forum thought it wise not to pass any order in favour of petitioner.
In the result, the application fails.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 131 of 2015( HDF 131 of 2015 ) be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
