Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No.1319 of 2008 was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and OP were directed to deliver back the possession of the vehicle in question to the complainant on payment of Rs.1,93,925/- being the outstanding dues without charging any interest on the said amount w.e.f. 05.05.2008 i.e. the date when the vehicle was forcibly re-possessed by OP-Bank. The OPs were also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The order was directed to be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they were made liable to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of compensation (i.e. Rs.80,000/-) from the date of order i.e. 29.12.2009 till its realization. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the Complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3 lacs from OP-Bank for purchase of Tata Indica DLS Model Car bearing registration No.CH-03-U-6336 on 25.07.2005. The said loan was to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments @ Rs.6140/- each starting from 01.09.2005. The complainant paid 24 out of 60 monthly installments to OPs and thereafter, he could not pay the remaining installments. It was alleged that OP-Bank took forcible possession of the vehicle through recovery agents on 05.05.2008 while the same was driven by his cousin namely Sh.Sabir Ali on the Haridwar- Saharanpur Road. The recovery agents also made his cousin to sign a printed form stated to be general information of asset receipt on the date of the repossession of the vehicle wherein it was mentioned that the car in question was received and parked at the Godown at Haridwar. Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to this effect to the Chandigarh Police vide Public Window Receipt No.PW200802169 dated 09.05.08. After repossession of the vehicle from complainant, OPs sent a notice of demand of payment/return of the vehicle dated 22.05.2008. According to the complainant thereafter and till date, he had been making earnest efforts to seek the possession of vehicle illegally repossessed by OPs but to no effect. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 25.10.2008 but no avail. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 4 On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that the complainant had availed loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the purchase of the car which was to be repaid in 60 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.6140/- each staring from 01.09.2005. However, the complainant was a chronic defaulter as he failed to adhere to the schedule of repayment mentioned in the agreement and did not pay the installments regularly and in time despite several notices having been sent requiring him to clear the outstanding dues but to no effect and therefore, the entire loan amount was recalled by OPs vide notice dated 22.05.2008 as the complainant had violated the express terms of the loan agreement . It was pleaded that in terms of the agreement, OPs were entitled to take repossession of the vehicle and as such there was no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant/complainant is that the District Forum has awarded only Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the illegal act of OPs in forcibly repossessing the vehicle from him which he had purchased on 25.7.2005 and used the same only for 34 months. After repossessing on 5.5.2008 it is in the possession of OPs at Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh and for the last 21 months it has been reduced to a useless piece of machinery and lost its marketable value and utility. Thus, he contended that on the basis of facts and circumstances of the matter in controversy, punitive damages were required to be awarded by the learned District Forum. To buttress his argument he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon’ble National Commission in Reliance India Mobile Versus Harichand Gupta III(2006)CPJ 73(NC). However, these contentions have been repelled by the learned counsel for OPs. 7. There is no dispute about it that the complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the OP-Bank for purchase of TATA Indica DLS Model Car as per the terms of the loan agreement. The said loan amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.6140/- each starting from 01.09.2005. As the complainant failed to pay the installments regularly as per the terms of the loan agreement, so the loan was recalled vide notice dated 22.05.2008 and the complainant was called upon by OPs to pay the outstanding amount of the loan i.e. Rs.1,93,925/- but the complainant did not repay the loan amount and as such the car was repossessed for recovery of the outstanding loan amount. The learned District Forum by referring the authority of Hon’ble National Commission in Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs S.Vijayalaxmi,III(207) CPJ-161 rightly observed that OPs could recover the due amount by approaching the civil court and at the same time complainant was held entitled to recover the car from OP by paying the defaulted amount without interest from the date of repossession of the car by OPs. 8. The impugned order was passed by the learned District Forum on 29.12.2009 directing OPs to deliver back possession of the car in question to the complainant on payment of Rs.1,93,925/- but no document has been produced on record by the complainant to show that he had approached OPs for making payment of the defaulted amount for taking delivery of the vehicle. The complainant could take the delivery of the vehicle in terms of the order of the District Forum. The compensation of Rs.80,000/- awarded by the District Forum on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice appears to be justified and reasonable in the circumstances of the case and needs no enhancement. Further, each case is decided on the basis of its own merits. No doubt, the District Forum is vested with powers to grant punitive damages but the same are granted on the basis of peculiar circumstances of the case. However, the learned District Forum in the instant case did not deem it fit to award punitive damage and on the other hand had awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/-. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion , we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 29.12.2008 passed by the District Forum awarding compensation and costs is quite reasonable and justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case and requires no interference. Accordingly the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
