Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/474

SAMPAT KUMAR KORI - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHREE RAM TRANSPORT FIN. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 20.02.2013 passed in C.C.No.190/2012 by District Commission, Rewa)

 

SAMPAT KUMAR KORI,

S/O SHRI RAM JIYAWAN KORI,

R/O WARD NO.28, DHOBIA TANKI,

TEHSIL-HUZUR, DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.)                                                     … APPELLANT.

 

                        Versus

 

1. MANAGER, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

    COMPANY LTD, REWA OFFICE, OPPOSITE AKASHWANI,

    ABOVE TVS AGENCY, REWA (M.P.)

 

2. MANAGER, SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

    COMPANY LTD, 101-106 FIRST FLOOR,

    SHIV CHAMBER, SECTOR-11, CBD BELAPUR,

    NAVI MUMBAI-400 614.

 

3. SHRIRAM GROUP COMPANY, MADRAS,

    ANGAPPA NAICAN STREET,

    CHENNAI.                                                                                                …. RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

           

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 07.11.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:              

                   This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

 

-2-

Forum, Rewa (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.190/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to appellant) are that in the year 2007 he after getting finance for a sum of Rs.10,37,000/- from the opposite parties/respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’) purchased a  truck bearing registration no. MP-17 HH-1285. Aforesaid loan amount i.e. was to be repaid in 57 EMI till 28.10.2011. It is alleged that he paid the instalments regularly but the respondents did not provide him the receipts. In the year 2010 he was threatened to seize the truck and after getting signatures on papers in English language it was informed that the truck was refinanced. He had deposited Rs.13,50,000/- towards aforesaid loan out of which he has receipts of Rs.10,95,035/- and the remaining receipts are to be provided by the respondents. The respondents on 04.01.2012 seize the truck from Maihar Cement Factory and parked the same in G.D.Farm, Satna. He was asked to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- and on requesting to give the details of Rs.10,00,000/- and release the truck, the respondent no.1 refused to release the truck on 21.02.2012. It is alleged that he is suffering loss of Rs.2,000/- per day. Legal notice was also sent but the respondents did not take any action. He therefore filed a complaint before the District

 

-3-

Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of respondents and seeking relief as stated in paragraph 22 of the complaint.

3.                The respondents resisted the complaint denying the fact that it is wrong to say that he was not provided receipts. It is stated that the appellant had obtained finance facility of Rs.10,37,000/- out of which cost of finance amount was Rs.3,40,647/-, Rs.76,930/- towards insurance, total agreed amount was 14,34,397/- for which first instalment was for Rs.15,127/- from 28.02.2007 and the second instalment till twenty eighth instalment was Rs.28,352/- and from twenty ninth instalment till the last instalment was Rs.23,570/-. In case of delay in payment of instalments, interest and penalty was to be paid on remaining amount. The appellant did not pay the instalments in time and till 30.12.2009 there was dues of Rs.7,20,000/- against him and when he showed his inability to deposit the same,  and on his request a new agreement was executed between the parties for remaining amount of Rs.7,20,000/- in which after adding interest amount of Rs.4,03,053/- total agreement value was Rs.11,23,053/- of which first instalment of Rs.27,629/- was to be paid on 05.02.2010, from second instalment dated 05.03.2010 to twenty sixth instalment of Rs.24,896/- was to be paid. Out of the aforesaid amount, the appellant had deposited only Rs.2,81,062/-. Till 04.01.2012, the date of seizure of vehicle, the appellant had to deposit Rs.6,50,029/- with the regular instalments against which he

-4-

had deposited only Rs.2,57,480/-. Rs.3,92,548/- towards original instalments, Rs.57,414/- towards overdue and Rs.3,93,469/- towards future instalments are still due against him. As per statement dated 04.01.2012, total balance amount is Rs.8,55,296/-. If the appellant deposits the aforesaid instalments, then they will release the vehicle. The appellant himself voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the respondents and has filed the complaint on false grounds. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs. 

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that no deficiency in service is found on part of respondents and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

5.                Heard learned counsel for parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission overlooked the facts and evidence available on record. The District Commission by overlooking the fact of unlawful seizure of vehicle dated 04.01.2012 has wrongly concluded that it is an admitted fact that a new agreement was executed between the parties on 24.12.2009 (D-2) in which the payable amount was Rs.11,23,053/- and the appellant has given affidavit P-3 and for default in payment of instalments the respondents seized the vehicle on 04.01.2012. The District Commission failed to appreciate the non-controverted evidence filed on record. The District

-5-

Commission while overlooking the deposit of Rs.13,50,000/- has committed grave error in concluding that Rs.3,92,048/- is still overdue against the appellant. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the complaint be allowed.

7.                Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the complainant was defaulter in making repayment of loan obtained and for his convenience only for the remaining amount a new agreement was executed between the parties but again he failed to make repayment of loan. He had shown his inability to repay the loan amount and himself surrendered the vehicle with the opposite parties.  He further argued that under a hire purchase agreement the financer is the owner of the vehicle and in case of default in payment of instalments he has every right to repossess the vehicle financed. The District Commission has rightly considered all the aspects and passed a well-reasoned order. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

8.                We have perused the record i.e. complaint, reply, affidavits and documents filed by the parties. The complainant/appellant has filed 74 documents (P-1 to P-74). The opposite parties/respondents have filed five documents D-1 to D-5. P-70 is the Vehicle Inventory List, wherein the complainant/appellant has given declaration “At my own risk & Cost, I have No Claim Whatsoever on Vehicle Repossessed by the company” and he

-6-

signed the same, which clearly goes to show that the complainant/appellant himself surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party finance company as stated by the opposite parties in its reply in paragraph 2. There is no protest on his behalf.  

9.                From the Exhibit D-1/DW1 which is an statement of account showing Settlement Amount Breakup, it is clear that there is outstanding amount of Rs.8,55,296.25 against the complainant/appellant. Exhibit D-2/DW-1 is Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 24.12.2009 i.e. second agreement. In support of aforesaid new Agreement dated 24.12.2009, he has filed his own affidavit stating that he is taking finance of Rs.7,20,000/- against his vehicle MP-17, HH-1285 and the said amount was deposited in my previous loan amount taken against the vehicle MP-17, HH-1285 and he has no objection in that regard. This again confirms the pleadings raised by the opposite parties that a fresh agreement was executed and the vehicle was refinanced. We find that there is also no objection of the complainant/appellant that he is not interested in taking fresh loan by executing a fresh agreement.

10.              It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant/appellant has not filed any document in order to substantiate his contention that he made full payment and nothing is due against him.  The complainant/appellant has also not controverted the statement of account D-1 filed by the opposite

-7-

parties finance company.  Thus, it is well established that the complainant/appellant failed to deposit instalments towards the loan amount as a result of which the respondents possessed the vehicle with his consent as he himself surrendered the vehicle when he shown his inability to repay the loan amount. In such circumstances, we do not find any fault on part of the respondent in taking possession of the vehicle and the respondents cannot be held for deficiency in service for this act.

11.              The law on the point of repossession of the vehicle by the financer under Hire Purchase Agreement for default in payments is well settled. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suryapal Singh (supra) and recently in M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Tiwari II (2021) SLT 366 has held that “Under hire purchase agreement, it is the financer who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes loan retains the vehicle only as bailee/trustee. Taking possession of vehicle on ground of non-payment of instalment is legal right of the financer.”

12.              The point involved in this matter is squarely covered and concluded in favour of the respondents and against the appellant by the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.

13.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has committed no error while dismissing the complaint.

 

-8-

14.              In the result, following the law laid down by the Apex Court we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.  Accordingly, the impugned order is affirmed.

15.              In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

           

                    (A. K. Tiwari)                (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   

              Presiding Member                    Member