Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant has incurred loan from OP for Rs.7,36,156/- in the year 2007. It is alleged inter-alia that complainant has paid Rs.6,33,120/- and there was outstanding of Rs.1,03,156/- which is to be paid. But he could not pay due to some unavailable circumstances. The OP, without any prior notice forcibly seized the vehicle on 21.11.2007 and sold away the vehicle without any consent of the complainant. The complainant got mental agony and harassment and as such filed the complaint.
4. The OP filed written version stating that as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the OP is empowered to repossess the vehicle in the event of default of payment of loan. Since, the complainant defaulted in payment of loan dues, the OP after giving prior notice has seized the vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ In the result, the dispute is allowed on contest against the Ops. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh) towards cost of vehicle and Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) for mental agony within a month from the case of the judgment. “
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. According to him, there was prior notice of the seizure and the sale issued to the complainant because he is a chronic defaulter in payment of loan dues. Since, the amount was not paid, they have seized and sold away the vehicle. Learned District Forum ought to have understood the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant had incurred loan from the OP to purchase the vehicle on 12.06.2005. It is admitted fact that the complainant was in default in payment of Rs.1,03,156/-. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was seized by the OP on 21.11.2007. Now the question arises whether there is amount of arrear issued under prior notice issued for seizure. The OP has not filed any agreement to show that the vehicle can be repossessed without any notice. The case record does not disclose filing of any notice prior to seizure of the vehicle. But there is a notice found in the record to show that before sale the notice has been issued to the complainant. When seizure is not proved with due notice, it must be held in absence of any agreement that the seizure of the vehicle without any prior notice is itself illegal. When the seizure of the vehicle is illegal, sale of vehicle is also illegal. Therefore, we are of view that the OP has committed error in law by disposing of the vehicle, thereby we agree with the finding of the learned District Forum.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that loan amount was Rs.7,36,156/- but the compensation has been awarded for Rs.10,00,000/- and same should be considered by modifying the impugned order. We considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and found that the vehicle has run for more than 2.5 years after which it was seized and sold. Not only this but also the record shows that there is outstanding of 1,03,156/- on the date of seizure against the complainant. When there is such outstanding loan amount against the complainant but the compensation is allowed at higher side, we find there is force with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. Considering all such aspects, while affirming the finding in impugned order, we modified the impugned order by directing the OP not to claim any arrear amount against the complainant but to issue NOC within a period of 45 days from the date of issue of this order. The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- instead of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of order till realization.
Appeal is partly allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.