Per Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President This appeal is directed as against the order dated 11/06/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.05/2010 by District Forum, Ratnagiri. District Forum directed that opponent/appellant shall hand over possession of Tata LPT 1613 bearing registration No.MH-04 AL-5237 to the complainant/respondent. District Forum further directed that by way of mental harassment and agony `20,000/- be paid by the appellant/opponent to the complainant/respondent. The opponent/appellant is further directed to pay `200/- per day to the complainant till the vehicle is handed over. This order has been challenged by the original opponent. 2. The factual matrix which are not in dispute are as under :- The complainant/respondent had taken finance from the opponent of `3,77,000/- on 28/03/2008 in order to purchase the vehicle Tata LPT 1613 bearing registration No.MH-04 AL-5237. The monthly equated installment was of `11,254/-. The amount was to be repaid within three years period i.e. 36 installments. However, said truck was taken into custody by the appellant/opponent on 05/12/2009 as the complainant committed default in respect of payment of four installments. The grievance of the complainant is that that the truck in question was lying unattended in the Kolhapur Garage and without any intimation and notice to the complainant, said truck was taken by the Finance Company and therefore, the complaint was filed for getting possession of said vehicle in question. It has been found that no notice was given to the complainant prior to seizure of the vehicle by the Finance Company and therefore, act on the part of the Finance Company is illegal. On the contrary it is duty of the Finance Company to intimate the complainant that he is in default for four installments and some period should have been granted to clear up the defaults. If default could not have been cleared by him within stipulated time, it would be appropriate on the part of the Finance Company to seize the vehicle. However, without following the due process of law, the Finance Company seized the vehicle in question. Therefore, above referred order has been passed by the District Forum. 3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant is absent. No one representing them is before us and nobody has expressed their difficulty as to why they have not appeared. Advocate Mr.Baliram Kamble is present for the respondent. We heard him and we find that the District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that the Finance Company without issuing any notice and without giving breathing time had seized the vehicle and therefore, directed the appellant to hand over possession of the vehicle to the complainant. However, what we find that in view of the fact that there was default of four installments, District Forum should have given a direction to the complainant to deposit amount of four installments with the Finance Company before delivery of the vehicle. Therefore, to that extent appeal is required to be allowed. -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal is partly allowed. 2. Respondent/complainant is directed to deposit amount of defaulted installments with the Finance Company within a period of two weeks from the date of order. On such a deposit, Finance Company shall hand over possession of the vehicle in question to the respondent/complainant. 3. Finance Company/appellant is hereby directed to re-schedule the installments from the date of delivery of the vehicle and the complainant shall pay the remaining amount as per re-scheduled equated monthly installment. 4. So far as order in respect of compensation for mental harassment and costs is concerned, same stands hereby confirmed. 5. Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. 6. No order as to costs. 7. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 14th February 2013. | 
