PER SHRI S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON’BLE PRESIDING MEMBER.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22/06/2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur dismissing consumer complaint No.CC/00/235.
(For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter called as “the complainant” and respondents as “the opponents”).
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that,
1. On 03/12/1996 the complainant purchased the vehicle i.e. Tata-709 model for Rs. 4,20,000/- from the opponent No.1 having registration No. MH-34/A-3834 under Hire Purchase Agreement dated 27/12/1996 with the opponent No.2. He paid ¼ amount of cost i.e. Rs.1,04,822/- to the opponent No.2 and agreed to pay the balance amount by monthly instalment of Rs. 12,350/-. According to the complainant, as per agreement, he paid monthly instalment to the opponents and till the month of January,1999 he paid total amount Rs. 2,49,226/- by instalments in addition to the initial advance payment. The complainant also issued bearer cheque of Rs. 30,000/- drawn on the Chandrapur District Central Co-operative Bank Limited on 28/01/1999. However, as the cheque was not encashed, the opponents without any notice illegally seized the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant paid some amount and got the vehicle released. Thereafter, again opponents illegally seized the vehicle alleging that he committed default in payment. It is alleged that the opponents refused to return the vehicle though he was ready to pay dues and in the month of May-1999 illegally sold the vehicle by auction. Therefore, on 20/05/2000 the complainant issued notice to the opponents claiming possession of the vehicle and damages at Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the opponents did not comply the notice. Therefore, the complainant has filed the complaint, claiming compensation at Rs.4,99,000/- and Rs.2,000/- more towards cost of proceeding.
2. Opponents by their written version resisted the complaint. They did not dispute that the complainant had purchased the vehicle under hire purchase agreement and had agreed to pay an amount by monthly instalment. However, they have denied that the vehicle was illegally seized and auctioned. It is submitted that the complainant committed default in payment of monthly instalment and therefore, notices were issued; but the complainant failed to clear the dues. Thereafter, the complainant made some payment and repossessed the vehicle. However, again the complainant failed to pay dues and committed default in payment and therefore, again issued demand notice to the complainant but complainant failed to comply the notice and therefore, again the vehicle was legally seized on 17/08/1998. Thereafter, the complainant paid an amount Rs. 50,000/- on 11/01/1999 and vehicle was released. However, again the complainant made default in payment and therefore, the opponents were constrained to seize the vehicle on 03/04/1999 and legally sold it by auction on 05/07/1999 after completing the legal formalities. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint. They also challenged the maintainability of the consumer complaint and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record the District consumer Forum held that the opponents legally seized and sold the vehicle as the complainant committed default repeatedly. In keeping with this finding the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.
4. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order the complainant has preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Ld. Counsel for both the sides & perused the written notes of arguments submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order
6. The undisputed facts are that the complainant had purchased the vehicle from the opponents under hire purchase agreement. It was agreed by the complainant to repay the amount by monthly instalments. It is also undisputed fact that the complainant made initial payment Rs.1,04,822/- and it was agreed to pay the balance amount of consideration by monthly instalments. It is also an admitted facts that the complainant repeatedly committed default in payment of instalments and therefore, the opponents were required to attach the vehicle thrice. Initially twice the vehicle was released and repossessed the vehicle on making some payments by the complainant. It is also admitted fact that before attachment of the vehicle at first time, prior notice was given to the complainant. Further, lastly before selling the vehicle by auction opponents issued notice to the complainant but complainant failed to pay the dues. All these facts are fairly conceded by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/ complainant. However, he has contended that no prior notice was given by the opponents to the complainant while attachment of vehicle for second and third time. But, when admittedly, prior notice was given before attachment of the vehicle for first time and vehicle was repossessed by the complainant twice with assurance to pay the outstanding dues and thereafter failed to pay the dues or instalments, it can not be accepted that the vehicle was illegally seized or attached without prior notice to the complainant.
7. Further, though it is contended by the complainant that no notice was given before selling the vehicle by auction, the record reflects that pre-sale notice was served on the complainant but the complainant failed to pay the dues and, therefore, the vehicle was sold by auction by completing all legal formalities. Accordingly, the District Consumer Forum has rightly held and dismissed the complaint. Therefore, we find no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
8. In the result the appeal is being devoid of any merits deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
Dated:- 22/04/2013.
