In gist the fact of this case is that the complainant with the financial assistance of the opposite party purchased a vehicle (truck) for her livelihood. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party upon an agreement executed by the complainant. The complainant deposited installments in due time. But the opposite party seized the vehicle bearing No.WB-59-A/1990 and sold it to some other person. So, this complaint has been filed by the complainant praying for a direction upon the opposite party/ financier to pay `3, 24,100/- towards part payment of the vehicle which was incurred by the complainant along with litigation cost and compensation.
On the other hand, the opposite party/ financer contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegations as made by the complainant with a specific allegation of the opposite party/ financer is that the case is not maintainable in its present form and law. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reason
The complainant has filed one affidavit sworn by himself as P.W.1 along with some documents in support of his contention about the alleged deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties He also examined and cross-examined by the Ld. Advocates of both sides. The complainant also files several documents in support of her case. These are (all photocopies)…..
- Letter dated 15.10.2009;
- Certificate of Registration dated 13.10.2009;
- Statement of account;
- Letter dated 11.09.2011 and
- Receipt copy dated 16.07.2011.
It is admitted fact that the opposite party/ banker has given loan to the complaint for purchasing the vehicle in question. So, it is evident that the opposite parties, the financer, granted loan facilities in favour of the complainant with certain terms and conditions as per deed of agreement or contract which has submitted by the opposite parties.
As the opposite party rendered service with financial assistance to grant loan for purchasing the vehicle in question on consideration and under the law when service was taken on consideration the complainant is a consumer in the instant case as defined U/S 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
It further reveals that the complainant is a resident of Uttar Dinajpur district and she purchased the vehicle for her livelihood. The vehicle in question was registered with the Motors Licensing Authority, Uttar Dinajpur. So, according to the various proved facts, we are of the opinion that part of cause of action has arisen within the limits of Uttar Dinajpur district and this Forum has jurisdiction to try this dispute.
The sole contention of the complaint is that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the opposite party/ financer forcefully and was sold out the vehicle to another party though complainant is bonafidely paid the installment amount towards satisfaction of loan amount. It is a fact that the complainant is irregular in repayment of loan as per transaction summery made by the OP.
The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the complainant urged that all the documents will support the case of the complainant that vehicle in question as hypothecated in favour of the OP who granted loan/assisted financially at the time of purchasing the vehicle in question was taken forcibly with the help of and it was not surrendered voluntarily at all. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon a decision reported in CPR Vol.-V 2009 238 (N.C.) in the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs Indrasen Choubey & Ors.
In the case Hon’ble National Commission it has been held that when vehicle was taken forcibly with the help of musclemen and when it was sold subsequently and no notice was given to the complainant before repossessing and sale of vehicle it amounts whole proceedings done in perfunctory highhandedness manner.
The second ruling, which is decided by the Hon’ble West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, is the plain copy of a decision which is not reported. So, it is not to be looked into.
On the other hand, the opposite party / financer also files several documents in support of their case. These are (all photocopies) ……….
1) Default notice dated 31.01.11.
2) Legal Notice dated 10.4.11.
3) 2 sets of AD in the name of Sampa Dubey and Jubel Bhai.
4) copy of envelop along with postal receipts.
5) Notice for settlement after repossession dated 04.06.2011.
6) Pre-possession intimation letter dated 02.09.2011.
7) Notice dated 08.10.11.
8) Agreement- 17 sheets.
It is quite evident from the letter dated 02.09.2011 on behalf of OP that the vehicle was repossessed by them on 29.08.2011 and we did not find any words from the content of the letter that the complainant was prior informed about repossession of the said vehicle. So, it can easily be concluded that the said vehicle was seized by the OP forcefully. It is quite surprising that in a democratic country have well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/ financer/ banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advance by use of force, which is clearly found from the post repossession letter dated 02.09.2011 and if it be encouraged then there will be result in anarchy, i.e., law of jungle will be prevailed that is not permissible in civilized country.
On careful consideration of the facts of the instant case about taking possession of the vehicle-in-question from complainant, demand of arrear amount it clearly indicates that the opposite parties have no faith either over judiciary or any Tribunal and take law in their hands by exercising power with the help of agents.
Under the facts and circumstances, in the light of the reasoning, as stated above this Forum is of the view that the complainant has able to establish his case of getting repossession of the said vehicle by exercise of force.
Thus, under the facts and circumstances, the issues are decided in favour of the complainant.
In the result the case succeeds.
Hence, it is ordered –
That the consumer case No. 34/2012 is allowed in part against the opposite party with cost of `2,000/- (rupees two thousand only).
We order the opposite party to pay `1,99,100/- (rupees one lakh ninety nine thousand one hundred only) to the complainant along with compensation of `1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) which including the litigation be paid within 45 days from the date of this order failure of which will entitled the complainant to claim interest @ 9% till full realization.
Let Xerox copies of this Order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
