DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.360A/2008

GIRDHARI LAL

S/o Late Sh. Khem Chand

R/o Village & P.O Mukhmel Pur

Delhi-110036

….Complainant

Versus

CITI FINANCIAL

Consumer Finance India Ltd.

Regd. Office 3, LSC, Pushp Vihar,

New Delhi

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :  05.06.2008    

 Date of Order            : 15.06.2022    

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.     Complainant on the strength of his complaint has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs.1,65,580/- alongwith interest @24% p.a. and to pay Rs.50,000/- for loss of his reputation and mental agony. Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

2.     Complainant purchased a Maruti Car bearing registration no. DL-6CK-1402 through Saya Automobile. Price of the said car is stated to be Rs.2,31,000/- and the Complainant paid an advance of Rs.30,000/- to Saya Automobile. Complainant got the said car financed from CITI Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP. As per the loan agreement, Complainant was to repay the loan in 32 installments of Rs.6,790/- per month. OP Company collected advance cheques  of the EMI from Complainant at the time of advancing the loan. It is stated that Complainant paid Rs.1,65,580/- to OP and Saya Automobile Company through cash receipts.

3.     It is next stated that the Complainant could not deposit one or two installments in time due to the illness of his daughter and intimation regarding the same was sent to the OP Company. However, in the month of June, 2006 the Complainant and his son were going somewhere in the car,  musclemen of OP chased the Complainant and forcibly took  illegal possession of  the Complainant’s car.

4.     Thereafter, Complainant approached OP to deposit the installments due, but OP did not accept the request  and demanded Rs.1,40,204/- from the Complainant. It is further stated  that OP  sold the car of the Complainant at whimsically low price i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- only and demanded Rs.40,204/- extra vide letter dated 27.12.2006.

5.     It is stated that confiscation of the car by the OP is illegal and Complainant had to suffer loss of Rs.1,65,580/- due to the illegal acts of OP. Complainant has also stated that 32 post dated cheques were lying in the possession of OP, which may be misused by them. It is stated that the Complainant not only lost money but also lost his reputation in  society due to illegal acts and misbehaviour of OP. Hence, the instant complaint.

6.     OP resisted the complaint and filed it’s written version, raising preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the loan account of the Complainant had already been foreclosed.

7.     It is further stated that Complainant had defaulted in making the payment of equal monthly installments (EMIs) and had failed to fulfill his obligation under the loan agreement signed between OP and the Complainant. It is also stated that Complainant himself  issued 33 duly filled up and duly signed post dated cheques to OP towards repayment of EMIs with respect to the said Auto Loan. It is denied that OP is in possession of cheques of the Complainant anymore.  Moreover, all the cheques except Cheque No. 61164 issued by the Complainant towards the payment of the EMIs had been dishonoured on presenting in the Complainant’s bank ,for encashment. No EMIs had been credited to the loan account of the Complainant since the month of February, 2006. 

8.     It is stated that while granting any vehicle loan, OP reserves its right to repossess the vehicle, in case the customer commits multiple defaults in the payment of scheduled installments. It is submitted that  inspite of repeated reminders and requests Complainant failed and refused to pay the aforesaid amount. OP had only exercised it’s lawful right to repossess the said vehicle.

9.     It is further stated by the OP that the total collectible amount from the Complainant as on June, 2006 due to OP was Rs.1,40,204/- and intimation was sent to the Complainant vide letter dated 07.07.2006 to repay the outstanding amount in order to save the said car from being  disposed of. It is further stated that when the Complainant failed to respond to the notice dated 07.07.2006, OP in exercise of its lawful authority to sell the said repossessed vehicle, sold the said vehicle i.e. Maruti 800 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said amount was appropriated towards liquidation of the outstanding of the loan amount. The loan account of the Complainant had an outstanding of Rs.1,40,204/- and hence, the Complainant was legally liable to pay the rest of Rs.40,204/- due to OP towards complete repayment of the said loan account.

10.   It is stated that Complainant has committed cheating and fraud on OP as the act of giving  post dated cheque expressly implies that the payment will be honored on the particular cheque date and the act of not keeping sufficient balance in the bank account on that date expressly implies that the drawer of the cheque intentionally does not want to honor his commitment. Reiterating the fact that all the cheques of the Complainant except one had been dishonoured once they were presented in the bank of the complainant. Thus, complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost for being false and vicious.

11.   Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Complainant Evidence by way of Affidavit & Written Arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Submissions made on behalf of Complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

12.   Admittedly, Complainant had availed an Auto Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from OP and the aforesaid loan was repayable in 33 EMIs of Rs.6,790/- each. It is seen from the records that Complainant after  availing the loan facility defaulted in the payment towards loan .Auto Loan was  disbursed to the complainant on 30.04.2004. Complainant ,with the complaint has annexed only two repayment receipts of Rs 6970/- each, dated 29.07.2004 and 30.05.2006. As all post dated cheques except one were dishonoured (fact which is not specifically denied by the complainant) and also due to default in payment OP issued a letter dated 07.07.2006 to the complainant. The same is appended at page no. 8 of the complaint, wherein it is clearly mentioned that OP had recalled the hire purchase/finance facility and demanded repayment of the outstanding. It is only after failure/non-compliance on part of the Complainant that the OP repossessed the asset (vehicle). We are of the opinion that OP acted in consonance with the rights vested in it under the agreement.

13.   It is seen that out of the total loan of Rs 2,00,000/, sanctioned to the complainant , OP has admitted that payment of Rs.1,65,580/- has been made by the Complainant. However, Rs.1,40,204/- was due on account of principle plus interest plus penalty for default payments. As per the loan agreement duly signed by the Complainant,  in case of default in payment OP is within its rights to confiscate the vehicle. For ready reference clause 3.2 and clause 4.4 of the said loan agreement is reproduced below:-

3. Representations by Borrower

3.2 The Borrower shall be liable to pay  or reimburse company all payments and expenses including legal costs, feesi0 and costs to take possession, store, insure and sell the vehicle as and when incurred by the Company. The Borrower shall also be liable for expenses incurred by the Company along with interest while pursuing any remedy under the Negotiable Instrument Act, Criminal Procedure Code or at any other applicable laws.

*******

3.7 The Borrower agrees to give post-dated cheques for the repayment of the Loan and is fully cognizant of the fact that dishonour of cheques is a criminal offence under the law. It is understood and acknowledged by the Borrower that any non-presentation of the post-dated cheques on the part of Company due to any reason whatsoever will not affect the liability of the Borrower to repay the Loan. The Borrower agrees to replace the cheques if required by the Company.

4.  Event of Default.

In the event of:

4.1 The Borrower failing to pay the Loan or any fee charges/costs in a manner herein contained and any one EMI or any other amount due hereunder remains unpaid for a period (30) (thirty) days from the date on which it is due, or

                                  *******

4.10 The Borrower shall not prevent or obstruct the Company from taking the possession of the Vehicle. For this purpose the Company authorised representatives, servants, officers and agents will have unrestricted right of entry in any premises of the Borrower. The Company will be within its rights to use tow-van to carry away the vehicle. Without prejudice to the Company’s rights and remedies to file suit against the Borrower, the authorised representative to the Company would be entitled to sell the vehicle by public auction or Private treaty (without being liable for any loss), and to give proper receipts and effectual discharges to the purchaser thereof and to apply any amount with the Company in or towards payment of such deficiency. Nothing contained in this clause shall oblige the Company to sell the Vehicle and the Company shall be entitled to proceed against the Borrower/Guarantor independently of such security.

                              *******

4.11 The Borrower shall be liable to pay various charges for possession of the vehicle like tow-away charges, godown charges, rentals and other such expenses incurred by the Company for effecting possession of the vehicle and for its safe keeping. The repossession charges are described in Clause 13.

14.   OP by way of letter dated 07.07.2006 had asked the Complainant to  make   outstanding payment within three days from the date of receipt of the said letter ‘failing which, the company shall be liberty to the dispose of the asset’. Upon failure by the complainant to respond to the said letter ,OP sold the vehicle in question.

15.   As overall outstanding of Rs.1,40,204/- was due  and  consideration received from the transfer/sale of the vehicle in question was Rs.1,00,000/- only. Complainant was still liable for an amount of Rs.40,204/-.

16.   This Commission is of the considered view that the Complainant failed to make payments as per the schedule of the loan agreement. Despite failing to fulfill the promise Complainant filed a case against OP expecting to be rewarded for his own wrongs. We opine that OP was only complying with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement ,signed between the parties. No deficiency of service can be attributed  towards OP in this regard.

17.   Therefore, we dismiss the complaint being misconceived and frivolous.

18.   File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.