West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/108/2011

Anup Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jun 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No. 108/2011                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kopot Chattopadhyay.   

           Anup Kumar, S/o-Late Ram Chandra Kumar, Vill. Radhanagar, P.O. Amlagora,

            P.S. Garhbeta, Dist. Paschim Medinipur……………..………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

     SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. & OTHERS………………Ops.

            Order No.15                                                                       Dated:-22/06/12                      

 

              The case record is taken up for hearing. Hd. Ld. Lawyer for both the parties who submit that the case may be heard and disposed of on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the documents and other relevant materials on record.

                After hearing both the parties it appears to be an admitted position that the claimant obtained a Truck with the financial help of the Ops. Some amount was paid and a considerable amount is still lying unpaid. The complainant has prayed for injunction restraining the Ops from taking forcible possession of the Truck and also an order regarding entitlement of the outstanding amount. Since it is admitted by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that a good amount of money still lying unpaid to the Ops. , I think, at the stage this court cannot assess the unpaid amount and ask the Ops to accept the assessed amount.  It is fairly submitted by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant that after filing of the case the complainant has not made any payment to the Ops.  Under such circumstances, also, no amount can be ascertained to be due from the complainant.

             Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.  However, in this regard we must hold that in view of the catena of decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the no possession of any vehicle can be taken over forcibly by the financier except under due process of law.  It is certainly for the Ops in this case to follow such law and norm.  With such observation, the case is disposed of.

 

                                                                                                                      Sd/-

                           Sd/-                                                                                 President        

                      Member                                                                           District Forum

                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.