Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 07-08-2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Bankura in C.C. No. 39/2012 whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Aggrieved by such decision of the Ld. District Forum, OPs therein have filed this Appeal.

Briefly stated, case of the Complainant is that he purchased a second hand vehicle with the financial assistance of the OP No. 1.  In terms of the agreement, Complainant repaid Rs. 2,36,040/- to the OPs.  Despite this, on 27-06-2011, the OPs forcefully repossessed the said vehicle without any prior information.  Thereafter, the OPs compelled him to enter into another agreement with them.  The Complainant again paid Rs. 86,225/- to the OPs.  The OP, by issuing a letter dated 09-04-2012 demanded a sum of Rs. 87,341/- from him without furnishing any statement of account.  Hence, the complaint.

Case of the OPs, per contra, is that the Complainant is a chronic defaulter resulting which a huge outstanding accumulated.  The OPs denied use of force while repossessing the vehicle in question.  They claimed that the Complainant voluntarily entered into the second agreement with them and after understanding the pros and cons of the said agreement put his signature on it.  Claiming that the loan account was prepared properly, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

Be it mentioned here that notice sent to the address of the Respondent was returned with the postal remark, ‘not known’.  Thereafter, newspaper publication was made in a Bengali newspaper.  Despite this, the Respondent did not turn up.  Therefore, the case was heard in absence of the Respondent.

It is asserted by the Appellants that the subject vehicle was repossessed after serving due notice to the Respondent.  However, for some obscure reasons, no copy thereof is placed on record in order to prove the bona fide of such claim.  Merely by inserting a clause to this effect in the Hypothecation-cum-Loan Agreement, financial companies cannot repossess vehicles resorting to arm-twisting tactics.  Use of musclemen for carrying out such illegal activities has been denounced by the highest Court of the land time and again. Yet, it seems, the Appellants have not taken any lesson from it.

For this very reason and also on account of various other reasons, that prompted the Ld. District Forum to disallow the claim of the Appellants toward tyre loan, gap day interest, seizing charge, yard rent, credit shield etc. being fully justified, we see no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order.

The Appeal, accordingly, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands dismissed ex parte against the Respondent being bereft of any merit.  The impugned order is hereby upheld.