JUDGMENT 27.10.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by M/s Bhullar Finance Co.- Opposite Party No.1 is directed against the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1195 of 2008 of respondent No.1(complainant) was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and appellant was directed to pay to the complainant Rs.36486/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 17.10.2006 till payment. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased one Passenger Three Wheeler having Regn. No.PB-12-H-3469 from Sukhdev Singh on General Power of Attorney dated 1.8.2008 after paying the consideration amount. The said three wheeler was financed by OP No.2 through its agency at Chandigarh in the name of Bhullar Finance Company- OP NO.1 and the amount financed was Rs.70,000/-. The Complainant was regularly paying the monthly installments. However, due to illness of his wife, he defaulted in paying two installments. It was alleged that while he was out of station and his Three Wheeler was parked at 43 Bus Stand Parking, OPs in connivance with the Parking Contractor lifted the same with an intention to sell it to someone else, without any notice or intimation. When complainant approached OPs and demanded possession of the vehicle, same was flatly refused and with the intervention of Police pursuant to a complaint lodged by him, the matter was compromised and he was given possession of the vehicle. The said compromise was reduced into writing after clearing the previous dues on 10.9.2006 Annexure C-4. Thereafter, when complainant went to the office of OP No. 1 for depositing the monthly installment which was due, the same was not accepted saying that the proprietor of OP No.1 was not present and only he would accept the money. Since OPs were having grudge against the Complainant, therefore, on 12.10.2006 at about 4.30 PM they again took forcible possession of the vehicle with the help of their musclemen from Light Point of Sector 26, Chandigarh. Again, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Police, but OPs being influential persons suppressed the matter and no action was taken by the Police. It was alleged that OPs sold the vehicle in question at a throwaway price to some other person after forging the papers as the Complainant never signed the relevant documents for its transfer. Out of the loan amount of Rs.70,000/- , a sum of Rs.41,486/- had already been paid to OPs whereas the value of the three wheeler at the time of snatching was between Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/-. Hence, alleging this act of OPs unjustified, illegal and unfair trade practice on their part , complainant filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum. 4. On the other hand, OP No.1 contested the complaint inter-alia stating therein that the vehicle in question was taken into possession on 17.10.2006 as the installments due were not paid by the Complainant. Due information of the same was also given to the concerned Police Station and the receipt of the same was obtained on the application. As the Complainant himself defaulted in making regular payments of the installments and to save himself from the penal interest and other liabilities, he filed complaint before the District Forum. It was pleaded that as per compromise before the police, Complainant promised to repay rest of the installments in time by 10th of every month and an undertaking to that effect was also given that in case the installment was not deposited on time, then OP No.1 could take the possession of the vehicle. The possession of the vehicle was again taken by duly intimating the concerned Police Station, as the Complainant failed to deposit the next installment. The factum of resale was denied by OPs and it was asserted the vehicle was still in its possession and complainant could take the possession after paying the balance amount to OPs. However, OP-2 did not appear despite due service and suffered ex parte proceedings. 5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, Opposite party No.1 has come up in this appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent No.1(complainant) in person and gone through the file carefully. The main point of arguments raised on behalf of appellant was that the vehicle was under a Hire Purchase Agreement and due to default in paying the installments, the vehicle was seized as per the terms and conditions of the contract, so there was no deficiency in service but District Forum after concluding that there was nothing wrong in taking possession of the vehicle still penalized the appellant for taking possession of the said vehicle. The amount of Rs.70,000/- was financed to the Respondent No.2 –Sukhdev Singh and he was liable to pay Rs.96,280/- in 29 monthly installments and on the date of taking possession of the vehicle on 17.10.2006 an amount of Rs.58,867/- was due and payable to the financier, so District Forum wrongly directed appellant to refund Rs.36,486/- alongwith interest. However, complainant repelled the aforesaid points of arguments and stated that he was ready to deposit the installment but before the due date his vehicle was forcibly lifted . 7. It is pertinent to mention here that as admitted by the parties an amount of Rs.70,000/- was financed by the appellant. The complainant in para-5 of the complaint had stated that Rs.41,486/- had already been repaid to the appellant towards principal amount but in corresponding para of reply OP No.1 has not denied this fact. Further, complainant had filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, U.T.Chandigarh in which it was mentioned that a total sum of Rs.60,000/- had been paid by him to OP No.1 towards the repayment of loan including interest. Insurance policy for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007 also represented the Insured Declared Value of the vehicle to be Rs.70,000/- Thus, the District Forum rightly concluded that an amount of Rs.28,514/- was due from the complainant when the vehicle was repossessed and its market value was at Rs.65,000/-. The contention of OP NO.1 that the vehicle is still in its possession and complainant could take back the same after paying the due amount alongwith interest is without any justification because the three wheeler in question was repossessed in October, 2006 ,so after four years of its use it would have become worthless and if parked idle, it would have become a piece of junk. 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum which is quite reasonable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | , | |
