JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioners present.  None is present for the respondent.  The respondent has been served.  Even

Vakalatnama has been filed by learned counsel for the respondent.  This is second call.  It is 12.30 p.m.  An amount of Rs.7500/- as litigation charges  has been paid to the respondent on 28.9.2013.

2.      Shri R. Kamalakannan took hypothecation loan for heavy vehicle in the sum of Rs.2,71,120/- payable in 24 installments at the rate of Rs.11,300/-.  He had paid substantial instalments.  He was a defaulter and his vehicle was forcibly possessed by Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., the opposite party.  The vehicle was sold for non-payment of dues. 

3.      The complainant filed a consumer complaint.  The District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to return the vehicle on repayment of Rs.45,120/- with accrued interest  by the complainant and imposed Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and costs.

4.      An appeal was filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission set aside the order passed by the District Forum because third party interest had been accrued.  On the contrary, the State Commission directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.  Notice was given to the petitioner

-3-

in Tamil language.  Its English translation goes to show that on 3.3.2007, a notice was sent to the complainant informing him that balance amount of Rs.1,41,018/- was pending on 3.3.2007.  The petitioner was asked to pay the said amount within 5 days and he was warned that in case the said amount was not paid, the vehicle would be seized by the opposite parties without any forecast.

5.      It is surprising to note that the complainant had received the notice on 8.3.2007 after the expiry of 5 days.  This shows arbitrariness on the part of the opposite parties.  They should have given him enough time to comply with their notice.  However, the opposite party did not swing into action immediately.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, pointed out that the money was not paid immediately.  Ultimately the complainant surrendered the vehicle on 3.2.2009.   His endorsement reads ‘handed over the vehicle to STFC, Salem in bad condition’.  The notice for sale of the vehicle was given to the petitioner through telegram dated 3.2.2009 i.e. on the same day and the vehicle was sold on 6.6.2009. 

-4-

7.      It appears that both the fora below have come to a wrong decision that the document Ex. A-9 dated 3.2.2009 was obtained through fraud.  There is no such inkling in the evidence on record.  The signatures of the complainant are not denied.  He has himself handed over the vehicle to STFC.  Proper notice was given while the vehicle was being repossessed.  Notice of sale was also given through telegram which fact has never been denied.  This is a case where complete procedure was followed. 

8.      In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority i.e. Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s) 5268 of 2013 titled as S. Mahadevaiah vs. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & ors. decided on 22.3.2013 wherein it was held:

“On a revision filed by the respondents, the National Commission referred to true copies of the notices sent by the respondents to the petitioner and concluded that the vehicle was re-possessed after due notice.  The National commission then referred to a large number of judgments of this Court and held that the District Forum and the State Commission committed serious error by awarding

-5-

compensation to the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had re-possessed the vehicle without issuing notice.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record including copies of the notices sent by the respondents to the petitioner.  In our view, the finding recorded by the National Commission that the vehicle was re-possessed after service of notice upon the petitioner is based on correct analysis of the documents produced by the parties and the impugned order does not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. “

          It must be borne in mind that the respondent is a chronic defaulter.  He waddled out the commitments made by him.

          Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the orders passed by fora below are hereby set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is also dismissed.