Haryana

StateCommission

RA/524/2014

S.N. Vashisth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shri Ram Investment Limited - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No: 524 of 2014

First Appeal No.704 of 2008

Date of Institution:06.02.2008/28.07.14

Date of Decision: 28.09.2016

 

S.N. Vashisth s/o Sh. Bhola Ram, Resident of H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak now deceased represented through legal representative Rajesh son of late S.N. Vashisht.  

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Shri Ram Investment Limited, Ist Floor Madhu Complex, Delhi Road, Rohtak through its Proprietor/partner/Incharge.

                                      Respondent-Opposite Party

2.      Ms. Anurag Devi w/o late S.N. Vashisth, R/o H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

3.      Parvesh s/o late S.N. Vashisth, R/o H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

4.      Ms. Ratnta d/o late S.N. Vashisth, R/o H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

5.      Ms. Sushma d/o late S.N. Vashisth, R/o H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

6.      Ms. Priti d/o late S.N. Vashisth, R/o H.No.702/32, Janta Colony, Rohtak.

Performa Respondents

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Shri N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sandeep Singh Joshan, Advocate with Shri Mohd. Amzad- representative, for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          S.N. Vashisth-complainant/appellant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (for short ‘the District Forum’), with the allegations that he purchased a vehicle bearing registration No.HR-46B-2474, for Rs.6,54,525/-, by raising loan from M/s Shri Ram Investment Limited-Opposite Party/respondent. He paid Rs.1,06,000/- in cash besides commission of Rs.14,000/-. The loan was repayable in monthly instalments of Rs.12,967/-.

2.                It was submitted that the respondent did not adjust Rs.1,20,000/- and also did not adjust the instalments paid. Despite the fact that the complainant has paid Rs.3,54,950/- to the respondent, still the respondent in its account has shown the balance outstanding payable by the complainant to be Rs.7,50,485/-. The respondent also repossessed the vehicle forcibly on 08.11.2005. Thus, the appellant filed complaint seeking direction to the respondent to correct the account of the complainant by adjusting the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-.

3.                The respondent-opposite party contested complaint by filing written version raising plea that the complainant had raised loan of Rs.6,54,525/-, on 28.02.2004. He deposited Rs.10,000/- as margin money and thereafter did not pay any amount. It was denied that the complainant paid Rs.1.00 lac, Rs.6,000/- or Rs.14,000/- at any point of time. It was stated that the loan was repayable in 14 monthly instalments of Rs.15,967/-. The complainant failed to adhere to financial discipline. Consequently, Hire Purchase Agreement was cancelled and the vehicle was taken into possession by following due process of law. A sum of Rs.4,45,697/- was due from the complainant on the date of repossessing the vehicle. The vehicle was repossessed under the terms of the agreement and it was sold in auction after due notice to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.3,80,000/- through M/s Citicorp Finance (India) Limited. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, the District Forum vide order dated 6^th November, 2007 dismissed the complaint.

5.                The complainant filed First Appeal No.704 of 2008 before this Commission, which was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2011 directing the opposite party as under:-

                   “1.     To release the vehicle in question.

                   2.      To pay damages to Rs.1,00,000/- to the

complainant.

3.      Not to claim any interest or any charges from 08.11.2005 till release of vehicle.

4.      To claim the instalments of Rs.12,967/- per month.

5.      To pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.”

6.                Revision Petition No.2664 of 2012 filed by the opposite party before Hon’ble National Commission, was decided vide order dated 22.05.2014. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“Consequently, revision petition, filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 25.10.2011, passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.704/2008, S.N. Vashisht vs. M/s Shri Ram Investment Ltd., is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission to decide application filed by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.N. Vashisht before the State Commission under order 22 Rule 3 CPC for impleading legal heirs of late S.N. Vashisht and then to proceed in accordance with law.”

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that the respondent-opposite party illegally repossessed the vehicle despite the fact that the complainant was paying the instalments regularly. 

8.                The statement of account with respect to the loan account of the complainant has been placed on the file which shows that from the date of raising loan, the complainant has hardly paid any instalment in time. The opposite party produced on the file the inventory list (Exhibit P-26) which was prepared at the time of repossessing the vehicle. It bears the signatures of Parvesh Vashisth, representative of complainant. The complainant cannot be heard to say that it was forcibly repossessed. The notice dated 15.04.2005, for recalling of loan is Exhibit R-4, which shows that the notice was issued to the complainant as well as guarantor Satpal Hooda. Exhibit R-8 is also the notice dated 18.02.2005. Statement of Account is Exhibit R-10 showing the amount due as payable as on 28.07.2007 at Rs.7,50,485/-.

9.                Even otherwise, it is well settled principle of law that if the financer takes possession of the financed vehicle under the terms of the agreement, then it cannot be termed any kind of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. Support to this view can be had from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. versus Jagmander Singh & Anr, 2006(1)R.C.R. (Civil) 756, wherein it was held as under:-

“If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. Of course, the hirer can avail such statutory remedy as may be available. But mere fact that possession has been taken cannot be a ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced.”

10.              In MAGMA FINCORP LTD. versus SUBHANKAR SINGH, I(2013) CPJ 27 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission held as under:-

 “11.  The National Commission, in case reported in Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Telco Finance Ltd. & Anr., II(2010) CPJ 163 (NC), Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President, was pleased to hold as under:-

Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum petitioner filed the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Sh. Jagmandar Singh & Anr., reported in 127 (2006) DLT 278 (SC)=II(2006) SLT 166=II (2007) CPJ 45 (SC), dismissed the Appeal. It was held that no statement of account showing details of repayment of loan instalments is filed by the petitioner/complainant. That the petitioner had defaulted several times. That the said judgment of the Apex Court has clearly endorsed the rights of the financer in respect of repossessing the vehicles in case of default by the hirer.”

“12.   The National Commission also took the same view in case reference, Parameshwari v. The General Manager, V.S.T. Service Station & 2 Ors., II(2010) CPJ 45 (NC)=decided on 11.2.2010.”       

11.              In view of the evidence and legal position enunciated above, it is held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents-opposite parties in repossessing the vehicle of the complainant. The District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 

12.              Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

 

Announced 28.09.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL