Complainant Tarok Singh vides the present complaint has prayed for the passing of necessary orders to the opposite parties namely: Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited (hereinafter called, 'the OPs') not to dispossess him from truck No.PB06-E-8997, Chassis No.373341CUZ002805 Engine No.697TC45CUZ108964 and restrained from demanding illegal amount from him. Opposite parties are further liable for the rendition of account statement against the loan advanced by him. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for harassment, financial loss and mental tension etc. alongwith litigation expenses Rs.15,000/-.

 2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 2005 he has got financed for the purchase of a Truck No.PB06-E-8997, Chassis No.373341CUZ002805 Engine No.697TC45CUZ108964 from the opposite parties and he was advanced Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. Thereafter he has been paying instalments regularly to the opposite parties. He paid first instalment of Rs.21,583/- on 29.3.2005 and last instalment paid on 26.9.2013. He has paid more than Rs.10,37,000/-. He has incurred huge amount for maintenance of the truck since finance till now. The truck needs maintenance from time to time and every month he incurred Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- for maintenance of the truck. He is earning approximately Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. He has no other source of livelihood. He is earning his bread by driving the said truck. Unfortunately a false and frivolous case got registered against him and he got arrested and the said truck was also impounded by police, after his release from the jail he got the said truck released on Sapurdari from the Court. So, he is suffering from some financial loss, therefore he could not deposit one or two instalment on time. The opposite parties approached him and started issuing threat to him that they will confiscate the truck without due course of law as he has not deposited the two or three instalments on time, hence they will get the possession of the truck without adopting the legal process. He requested them not to do the same but they ignored his request. He has further pleaded that he was facing a financial loss. He requested the opposite parties to reduce the monthly instalment and further requested to reduce the rate of interest on the humanity ground but they flatly refused to accept both his requests. The opposite parties told him that he has an option to get refinance the truck and he has to pay interest @ 14% per annum for that. The total amount of the loan was Rs.6,00,000/- and he has already paid more than Rs.10,37,000/- to the opposite parties but the opposite parties still demanding more than Rs.8,00,000/- from him, which is against the law. The demand of the opposite parties is illegal, null and liable to be declared void. Hence this complaint.

3.        Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply through their counsel taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is habitual defaulter in the payment of loan instalment as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score; the complainant is using the Truck in question for commercial purpose and earning profits; Further he has not approached the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts from this Ld. Court and the complainant has no jurisdiction to file the present complaint before this Forum as there is an Arbitration agreement between the parties and all the issues and disputes between the parties are to be raised before the arbitrator only. On merits, it was submitted that the opposite party is reputed transport finance company and charges as per the RBI guideline. The complainant is a habitual defaulter in the payment of loan instalments. The complainant requested the opposite party that he is unable to pay the remaining due loan instalments and also demanded that his due loan amount be financed in lieu of his dues, as such re-agreement vide No.PTNKT0301300012 dated 31.01.2013 had been signed between the parties against the loan amount of Rs.5,03,000/- plus interest amount of Rs.3,41,343/- to be paid by the complainant in 54 equal monthly instalments of Rs.15,606/- each without any default from the said dated i.e. 31.1.2013. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and controverted and lastly, the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.

4.    Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C66 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Satish Kumar, Retainer Advocate and Authorized Representative of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-2 and copy of special power of attorney Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have thoroughly examined the available evidence on the records so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for of some documents ignored to be produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the respective learned counsels of the present contestants. We find that the present dispute had arisen on account of the alleged re-execution of ‘second’ loan agreement to cover the balance outstanding of the ‘first’ continuing loan along with its accrued interest to escape the ‘illegal’ threats of re-possession of the financed Truck, at the hands of the opposite party financers. The OP financers have duly stated in its written reply (as also deposed in the accompanying affidavit Ex.OP2) that the hereinabove stated agreement stand executed as on 31.01.2013 whereas the complainant has merely apprehended its forcible execution (at the threats of ‘illegal’ repossession of the financed Truck) with the sought out prayed relief/remedy of non-repossession of the financed Truck and non-execution of the alleged ‘second’ loan agreement.

7.       We find that the complainant vide his application had sought the production/submission (by the OP financers) of the allegedly re-executed Agreement dated 31.01.2013 along with the original agreement besides its statement of account; that was duly replied by the OP financers vide its reply dated 15.12.2015 submitting the statement of account subsequent to 31.01.2013 and stating/assuring the submission of both the agreements at the time of its evidence. However, it be reduced to writing for the statutory purposes that the OP financers failed to produce the said re-executed loan-agreement/documents in spite of having availed of many opportunities (from 29.01.2016 to 19.02.2016) but for any un-explained reasons on records.

8.       Lastly, we find that the complainant has been admittedly a long-time defaulter in repayment of the vehicle loan but has failed to produce any record of representations of his valid financial hardships to the financer and thus the OP financer shall be naturally at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law and as per the original loan agreement. The courts shall not interfere in the lawful repossession of the financed vehicles if prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure as established in law.

9.       In the light of the all above, we ORDER for the dismissal of the present complaint the same having been bereft of any statutory merit. The parties shall however, bear their own costs, here.

10.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

              (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                   President   

Announced:                                                        (Jagdeep Kaur)       

June,14 2016                                                              Member

*MK*