ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties not to repossess the vehicle, supply a copy of the loan agreement to receive the installment for the loan without adjusting the same in any other charges and to exonerate the complainant from any other unnecessary charges and to pay compensation of Rs.95,000/- or else to receive the entire installments leaving the future interest and provide the NOC”.
The brief fact of the complainant is that, the complainant being an unemployed person had purchased one Truck in the year 2015 being financed by opposite parties for his lively hood and maintenance of his family from the earning of the vehicle. The opposite parties had financed Rs.4,50,000/- which was to be repaid in 23 installments. The complainant used to ply the vehicle and used to repay the loan installments in regular intervals to the opposite parties. The vehicle could not able to run due to want of repair and due to prolonged illness and higher study of the children he could not able to pay the installments in time and the same was intimated to the opposite parties and they assured the complainant that they shall not take any corrosive step till end of January, 2016 but for default of 3 installments they repossessed the vehicle on 15.10.2015. When the matter stood thus the complainant opted for complete settlement of the loan in order to close the account in order to get the NOC and the opposite parties asked the complainant to pay Rs.2,23,000/- in the first phase and the rest will be paid later on after the approval. As per the advice the complainant paid the amount but unfortunately the opposite parties adjusted Rs.2,00,000/- in another loan account and adjusted only Rs.23,000/- in this account and the complainant had defaulted only three installments till filing of consumer complaint.
The opposite parties have filed their written version stating as under;
The complainant had purchased a Truck and requested to the opposite parties for issuance of a loan for of Rs.4,50,000/-. As per his request the opposite parties agreed to sanction the loan. Accordingly a hire purchase agreement vide contract No.ORBUNG00280 was executed on 31.01.2015 between both the parties. The finance amount is Rs.4,50,000/- finance charge Rs.72,000/- the complainant has to pay the agreement value amount Rs.5,22,000/- in 23 EMIs and the total tenure is fixed from 01.3.2015 to 01.01.2017. The complainant was agreed to pay the installments regularly on 1st day of each month in default late penalty charged against the outstanding amount. By taking the finance amount from the opposite parties, the complainant purchased the vehicle and not bothered to pay the EMIs regularly. On repeated follow up and repeated reminders the complainant was not bothered to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement and has violated the conditions of the agreement. As per statement of account the complainant is defaulted for an amount of Rs.2,13,541/- as on 01.3.2016.
As per order of Hon’ble State Commission both parties are found absent on call. The vehicle was purchased in the year 2015 which was to be repaid in 23 installments from 01.3.2015 to 01.01.2017. The complainant was in default of Rs.2,13,541/- as on 01.3.2016. This Commission vide order dt.23.12.2015 was please to direct as under;
“Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. Hence considering the circumstances, the misc case stands allowed. However issue notice to the opposite parties to file objection if any but in the meantime the opposite parties are directed not to repossess the asset (vehicle) bearing Regd. No.OR-05-AL-0941 and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till the dt.13.01.2016” which was again confirmed on 13.01.2016. The order was made absolute on 20.4.2016. During pendency of the case the opposite parties have repossessed the vehicle on 13.3.2018 when the vehicle was loaded with coal. The complainant had filed E.A. No.03/2018 where in, this Commission vide order dt.17.01.2020 was pleased to direct to release the vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and imposed cost of Rs.20,000/- to the opposite parties.
In the meantime 4 & ½ years have passed and Hon’ble State Commission in F.A. No.37/2021 has been pleased to direct as under;
“When the complaint case No.149 of 2015 in which misc case No.95 of 2015 has been filed and is pending the impugned order itself can be a issue at least to be disposed of during complaint case. On the other hand, whether the repossession of the vehicle is valid under law or not can be decided in the complaint case. Further, the imposition of fine of Rs.20,000/- against the Ops are as per section 71 of the Act is a pre judgment before trial is complied as depicted under the law of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. Hence, the impugned order dated 17.11.2020 is set aside. We direct the learned District Commission to proceed with the complaint case and dispose of the same by framing the different issue including the above issue and dispose of the same in accordance with law within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be produced by the learned counsel for appellants before the learned District Commission on 26.10.2022 to take further instruction from it.”
Now the issue on this case whether repossession of the vehicle while it was directed not to repossess by this Commission is right course of action on the part opposite parties and whether the vehicle in question was in proper condition after 4 & ½ years is to be taken in to consideration while deciding the case.
Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount or not to the opposite parties, it is a fact that complainant has taken loan from the opposite parties and was in default in paying the installments and taking advantage of the interim petition of this Commission more default was none. Now the issue is whether opposite parties are justified in repossessing the vehicle on 13.3.2018? Our answer is that when the order of this Commission is on force, it is not correct in part of opposite parties to repossess the vehicle forcibly without due process of law.
The complainant was in default and this Commission was pleased to give protection and in order to give complete justice to both sides we are asking both sides to settle the matter in a realistic manner and held that for illegal repossession of vehicle without due process of law. We are in complete agreement with the compensation imposed by our predecessors accordingly opposite parties have to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. The vehicle might have been damaged after remaining idle more than 4 & ½ years. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 16th Dec.,2022.
