Haryana

Panchkula

CC/268/2015

RAJEEV MAHAJAN. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	268 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.11.2015
Date of Decision	:	27.04.2016

                                                                                          

Sh.Rajeev Mahajan s/o Sh.Harbans Lal Mahajan, R/o Mahajan Niwas, Opp.Gurukul School, Khadakmangoli, District Panchkula (Haryana).

2^nd Address:-

Sh.Rajeev Mahajan C/o M/s Sukata Tractor Parts Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.211, Phase 1, Industrial Area, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., 101-105, 1^st Floor, B Wing Shiv Chambers, Sector-11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai 400614 Maharashtra through its Managing Director.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Branch Office: 1^st Floor, Plot No.145, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Urban Estate, Panchkula 134113, Haryana through its Branch Credit Manager.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

                             Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.G.S.Anand, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Mr.Puneet Tuli, Adv., for the Ops.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a vehicle Trax Cruiser, Model 2012, registration No.HR 68 AT 5420, engine No.D27059503 and Chassis No.MC1D4DBA6CP023485 on 30.03.2012 for Rs.6,20,000/- on hire purchase basis from the Ops. The complainant was issued RC on 01.05.2012 valid upto 23.04.2014 with hypothecation thereof marked in favour of the Ops. First installment was commenced from 30.04.2012 of Rs.14,280/- per month of total 48 installments. On 27.05.2015, the complainant surrendered the vehicle to the Ops vide letter of surrender by the Hirer. On 07.08.2015, the complainant has made substantial payments and credited to the account of Ops as per statement of account provided to the complainant by the Op No.2. The complainant surrendered the vehicle and it required sale of the vehicle upon surrender by associating the borrower. The complainant visited the Op No.2 and requested to sell the vehicle by mutual association & consent but to no avail. The complainant has not received any message from the Ops that the vehicle would be sold or not so that the complainant could make efforts for sale of the vehicle to get the maximum price. The complainant issued legal notice dated 09.08.2015 to the Ops to inform the complainant in writing the status, condition and location of the vehicle and to permit inspection of the vehicle by the complainant on working day by giving prior intimation to him and to work out modalities of sale of the vehicle in consultation with the complainant and thereupon, put the vehicle to sale but to no avail. This act of the Ops amount to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this claim.
2. The Ops appeared before this Forum and filed written statement. It is submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the complainant himself admitted that the vehicle has been surrendered due to default being made by him in paying the installments. It is submitted that the vehicle had been sold in the year 2013. It is submitted that the complainant has to come forward within one month from the date of surrender to take back the vehicle after paying full and final settlement but the complainant failed to do so within one month from the date of surrender. It is submitted that the third party has been paying the installments and the Ops have settled the case with the third party and has even issued a NOC to Sh.Satpal Singh son of Sh.Biru Ram-third party. It is submitted that the complainant has no right as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement to sell the surrendered vehicle by mutual consent or otherwise. It is submitted that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and there was no such provision in the terms and conditions of the loan agreement that the borrower has any right to make efforts for sale of the surrendered vehicle. It is submitted that the letter of surrender which clearly states that “I shall pay the full settlement amount within one month from today and receive the vehicle back”. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. Replication to the written statement has been filed by the complainant.
4. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the Ops has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the material on record carefully and have also considered the synopsis filed by the counsel for the complainant.
6. Purchasing of vehicle by the complainant on 30.03.2012 for a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- on hire purchase basis from the Ops is not disputed. It is also established on the case file that the complainant had surrendered the vehicle voluntarily due to non-payment of installments to the Ops on 27.05.2015. Execution of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement (Annexure R-1) is not disputed. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that had the complainant been intimated about the selling of vehicle, he could have made efforts for the sale of vehicle to get the maximum price but the Ops have not done so. On the other hand, the Ops have pleaded that as per clause 7.2 of the said agreement the complainant has no right to force/ask to them to intimate about selling of vehicle because he (complainant) himself has surrendered the vehicle on committing default of payments. Clause 7.2 of the said agreement is reproduced as under:-

“Shriram reserves the right to assign/sell/securitize the loan, in part or the whole, with or without underlying security, if any, and transfer its right, title and interest herein to any third party and the Borrower expressly agrees that Shriram is not required to either make a reference to the Borrower or obtain the Borrower’s consent or intimate or put the Borrower to notice of such assignment / sale/ secrutisation. The Borrower shall be bound to accept any such assignment/sale/ securitization/transfer and accept such other purchaser/assignee/transferee as creditors, exclusively or as a joint creditor with Shriram, or as a creditor exclusively with the right to Shriram to continue to exercise all powers hereunder on behalf of any such purchaser/assignee/transferee. Any cost in this behalf whether on account of such sale/assignment or transferor enforcement of rights and recovery of outstanding dues shall be to the account of the Borrower.”

From the above, there was no need to give notice to the complainant. The terms and conditions are binding on both the parties. It is settled law that he who seeks equity must do equity but in the present case the complainant has not done so because on one hand he himself has committed default in making the payment and also surrendered the vehicle and on the other hand by way of present complaint he is trying to get undue benefit of the benevolent provisions of the CP Act. The rights of the complainant as well as the Ops to the vehicle were governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement and that latter acted in accordance with the said terms. The complainant has not been able to demonstrate to us what prejudice, if any, was caused to him by the Ops on account of the latter selling the vehicle to a third person without issuing any notice to him, when he had admittedly failed to remit the due installments of the loan. Under the Hire Purchase Agreement it is the financer who is the owner of the vehicle and the person who takes the loan retain the vehicle only as a bailee/trustee. The Ops are not guilty of any deficiency in service because they have acted as per the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement. The Ops were no need to give prior notice or intimation at the time of selling of vehicle because as per higher purchase agreement they were authorized to repossess the vehicle in case of default of repayment of loan installments. The complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

27.04.2016                                                                                                               S.P.ATTRI            ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER           MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.                              

 

                                            

                                                DHARAM PAL                                                                                         PRESIDENT