Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/200/2013

Arvind Kumar Saini S/o Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramneek Sharma

28 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 200 of 2013

                                                                                                Date of institution: 12.03.2013

                                                                                                Date of decision: 28.08.2017

 

Arvind Kumar Saini, aged about 40 years, son of shri Surjit Singh, resident of village Salempur Gada, Post Office Sadoli, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur (UP).                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                   …Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited Opp. Raghunath Mandir, Near Lal Dwara, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager Savinder Singh.
2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Regd. Office 3^rd Floor, Mookambika Complex No.4 Lady Desika Road, Mylapore Chennai-600004.                                                                                                                                                                              

 

                                                                                                                                                 ... Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:        SH. SATPAL, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present:           Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. A.S. Goel, Advocate, counsel for OPs

 

 

ORDER (SATPAL, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against respondents (herein after Respondents will be referred as Ops)  

2,                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is the owner of a truck bearing No. HR38-K-2568 and he is plying the said truck to earn his livelihood. The complainant purchased the truck and he availed a financial assistance of Rs.5,90,000/-  from the OPs. On 24.09.2011 at about 11.00 am when driver of the above said truck was on the way to the village of complainant while coming back from Rishikesh, some musclemen of OPs forcibly snatched the truck of the complainant and gave beatings to the driver of the truck namely Fiazan son of Bashir resident of village Daulatpur. They further snached Rs.15000/- from the complainant which was money of fare. Not only this, they intimated the driver to put his thumb impression on some papers and snatched the truck in question and fled away from the spot. Complainant then moved an application to Superintendent of police, Saharanpur and also filed a complaint against the OPs at the Court at Saharanpur. The OPs have returned the truck in question on 21.05.2012 after about 8 ½  months. During this time, they also changed four tyres of the truck with some old tyres and also removed battery of the truck and also taken out 150 ltr. Diesel of the truck. Due to the illegal act of OPs, the complainant is deprived of his livelihood as the complainant used to earn approximately 50,000/- per month from this truck and out of this amount of Rs.50,000/- complainant used to pay appx. 25,508/- as installment of the above said truck to the Ops, so the complainant is deprived of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-  and the Ops have illegally snatched Rs.15000/- from the driver and also removed battery of the truck and drawn out 150 Ltr. Diesel of the truck. Hence, this complaint wherein it is prayed that OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,25,000/-  i.e. Rs.50,000/- per month for the period of 8 ½ months i.e. the period under which the vehicle of the complainant was illegally detained by the Ops and also to pay Rs.15,000/- which was illegally snatched by the OPs from the driver of the complainant and to return the original tyres and battery of the truck.  They may be further directed to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement taking some preliminary objections such as complaint of the complainant is not maintainable; complainant is stopped from filing the present complaint; complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and correct facts and on merit it is stated that after availing the loan facility the complainant became defaulter in making the repayment of the loan amount as per terms and conditions stipulated in the loan documents. Consequently the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle in question to the OPs as he showed his inability to make the payment of the loan installment. But, later on at the request of the complainant  the said truck was released to him as the complainant had undertaken that now he will make the payment of the loan installments regularly without any default but he again failed to fulfill his undertaking and failed to act as per loan agreement and documents. The complainant himself surrendered the vehicle in question to the OPs as he showed his inability to make the payment of the loan installment. But later on at the request of the complainant the said truck was released to him as the complainant had undertaken that now he would make the payment of the loan installments regularly without any default but he again failed to fulfill his undertaking and failed to act as per loan agreement and documents. Rests contents of the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX/A and another affidavit as Annexure CW/B and documents as Annexure C1 to C-25 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Authorized Representative as Annexure RW/A and document as Annexure R1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as evidence placed on file minutely and carefully.

7.                     The learned counsel for the complainant had argued that the truck of the complainant was snatched by the musclemen of the Ops forcibly on 24.9.2011 when the said truck being driven by the driver and was on the way to the village of the complainant while coming back from Rishikesh.  They further snatched Rs.15,000/- which was money of fare. Not only this, they intimated the driver to put his thumb impression on some papers.  The said truck was detained in Yamuna Nagar by the Ops.  The complainant then moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur and also filed a complaint against them in the Court at Saharanpur from Annexure C.3 to C.7 and C.15 to C.17.  The Ops have returned the truck in question on 21.5.2012 after about 8 ½ months.  During this time, they also changed four tyres of the truck with some old tyres and removed battery of the truck and also taken out 150 liters Diesel from the truck.  As a result of this illegal act of the Ops the complainant has suffered huge loss and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has aruged that the complainant has concealed the true and correct facts from this Forum.  In fact, the complainant had failed to comply with the loan agreements and documents as he defaulted in making the repayment of loan amount as per terms and conditions stipulated in the loan agreement/documents.  Earlier, the complainant had surrendered the truck as he showed his inability to make the payment of laon agreement.  But lateron, on the request of the complainant, the said truck was released to him as he undertook to make payment of laon installments regularly without any fault but he again failed to act as per loan agreement and documents.  As per Annexure R.1, an amount of Rs.13,13,205.80ps was outstanding against complainant as on 3.3.2015.  As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being false and frivolous and without merits. 

9.                     After hearing the counsel for both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as they have failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the truck in question was surrendered by the complainant himself.  Had the complainant, voluntarily surrendered the truck, he would have done so at Yamuna Nagar in the office of the OP No.1.  On the other hand, complainant had filed complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of Learned ACJM (2^nd) Saharanpur against forcible repossession of his truck, which is clear from the annexure C.4 & C.5 and had also filed an application (Annexure C.6) before the S.S.P.Saharanpur for taking legal action against the Ops.  These facts corroborate the version of the complainant that his truck was snatched forcibly by some musclemen of the OPs while the same was coming from Rishikesh.  However, the complainant had failed to produce any evidence regarding any other loss as mentioned in the complaint.

            From the facts stated above it is clear that the truck in question was snatched forcibly by the musclemen of the Ops without following proper procedure and without giving any prior notice which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

Now the next question arises as to what amount of compensation the complainant is entitled.  The truck in question was returned to the complainant by Ops after 8 ½ months after they came to know about the Criminal Complaint pending before the Court at Saharanpur which was withdrawn.  The complainant is thus, entitled for the relief.  Hence, we partly allow this complaint and direct the Ops to comply with the following directions:-

1. To pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the complainant for loss of income for a period of 8 ½ months (total Rs.68,000/-) i.e the period during which the vehicle of the complainant was detained illegally by the Ops.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

This order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.  Copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs.  File be consigned to the record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:28.8.2017.

                                                                                    (SATPAL)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                                                              D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                              AT JAGADHRI

 

              (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                 (S.C.SHARMA)

              MEMBER                                                  MEMBER.