Complainant files hazira.
Fixed for petition hearing i.d. exparte.
No step is taken by the O.Ps. It appears from the record that the O.Ps. did not take any step on the previous date also. Therefore, the petition filed by the Complainant on 27-07-2015 has been heard in absence of the O.Ps.
The Misc. Case no.16 of 2017 dated 11-07-2017 is taken up for hearing.
Heard Ld. Lawyer for the Complainant.
The case in brief is that the Complainant purchased one Mahindra Loadking 4TBS – III from O.P. No.1 with financial assistance of O.P. no.2. at the time of taking loan from the O.P. No.2 it was decided that the Complainant should be paid Rs.7,65,360/- in equal 48-number of monthly installment i.e. Rs.15, 945/- per month but the O.P. No.2 whimsically fixed Rs.17,430/- as monthly installment. The Complainant has already paid Rs.5,06,429/- i.e. the major sum and the balance amount of Rs.2,58,931/- is due. The Complainant mentioned that the total amount payable by the Complainant upto July-2015 is Rs.15,945/- X 31=Rs.4,94,295/- where as she already paid Rs.5,06,429/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.12,134/-. But on 03-06-2015 during the pendency of this case the O.P. No.2 without any prior intimation to the complainant repossessed the vehicle by
way of preparing inventory list during the plying condition of the vehicle and sent a threatening letter on 14-07-2015 to sell the vehicle in its “as is where is condition” to recover the balance amount. The Complainant prays inter-alia direction upon the O.P. No. 2 not to cause any injury or sell out the disputed vehicle.
It appears from the record that the petition filed by the Complainant has been duly served to the O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 and several opportunities have been given to both O.Ps. for filing written objection if any but neither of the O.Ps. filed written objection nor they appeared since 26-02-2018. Hence we have heard the petition today in absence of the O.Ps.
It appears from the loan-statement filed by the Complainant that original loan has been sanctioned by O.P. No.2 amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- and original interest had been calculated amounting to Rs. 1,65,360/- i.e. total payable amount was 7,65,360/- which had to pay in 48-months. Therefore, the Complainant had to pay Rs. 15,945/- per month; but it appears from the statement-transaction that the O.P. has taken Rs. 17,430/- as monthly installment from 15-03-2013 to 23-11-2013 and after that the O.P. has taken different amount on different months. It also appears from the document that Complainant had already paid more than Rs. 5,00,000/- of the loan amount up to March, 2015 and as per the agreement, the Complainant had to pay the remaining amount, approximately Rs.2,50,000/- up to December, 2016.
It is clear from the above discussion that O.P. No.2 has taken excess amount as monthly installment and the Complainant paid maximum amount of loan within March, 2015 and there was sufficient time for the Complainant to pay the remaining balance. But the O.P. No. 2 repossessed the vehicle on 03-06-2015 in the meantime of the agreement.
Moreover, the Complainant filed this case on 23-03-2015 and the O.P. No.2 repossesses the vehicle on 03-06-2015 i.e. during the pendency of this case. In this regard the Complainant filed a citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 1 C Cr LR (SC) 139. Reliance has been placed upon the decision taken by Ld. Apex Court in the case which involves disputes of such nature.
On the other hand, Ld. Lawyer for the O.P. No.2 received the copy of the petition in question on 04-04-2016. But till date did not file any written objection against that petition though several opportunities have been given. Moreover, Ld. Lawyer for O.P. No.2 did
not appear before this Forum at the time of hearing of that petition. The copy of the petition in question also duly served to O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 received the same with due endorsement on the A/D but neither O.P. No.1 appeared to contest the same nor sent any written objection against the petition filed by the Complainant. So, the allegation raised by the Complainant in the petition in question remains unchallenged and we find prima-facie of the Complainant case.
Considering the balance of convenience and in convenience it also appears that Complainant should be given interim relief as prayed for.
It seems to us that whether the Complainant had committed default in the matter of payment of monthly installment or not or what should be the exact amount of outstanding dues under the loan agreement, will be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of this case and as such at this stage considering the materials on record, the O.P.No.2 is hereby directed not to sell out the disputed vehicle and to maintain in good condition the same till the disposal of the case.
Thus the Misc. case no. 16/2017 be and the same is hereby disposed of.
To 02-07-2018 for argument and further order.
A copy of this order along with the petition filed by the Complainant on 27-07-2015 be sent to the O.P. No.2 immediately.
