Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that complainant in order to earn his livelihood has purchased a car bearing Regd.No. OR-06-F-9898 being financed by the OP. It was agreed between the parties that the EMI for Rs.6700/- will be paid in 14 installments. It is alleged by the complainant that after payment of twelve installments the vehicle was seized by the OP without sending notice on the complainant. After the seizure, OP send demand notice of Rs.2,26,689.83. It is stated that the amounts should be payable before 20.05.2008. When the complainant knew the matter, the vehicle has been already seized. So, showing deficiency in service, the complaint case was filed.
4. The OPs filed written version stating that the complainant requested the OP for sanction of loan and the loan was sanctioned as per terms and conditions of payment of EMI in 14 installments. The complainant could not pay the installments for which the vehicle was seized. Before sale of the vehicle pre-sale notice was given to the complainant and the appropriate action was taken by the Ops. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
Thus, under the circumstances we direct the OPs to refund the down payment which the complainant had made to the OPs at the time of finance of the vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay 18 % (eighteen) percent interest on the said amount for the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.
The case is disposed off accordingly.”
6.. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the complainant was in arrear and after due notice he did not respond and the vehicle was sold after the pre-sale notice was given to the complainant. After observing all formalities, they have sold the vehicle. As such learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law but the impugned order being illegal should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that the complainant has taken loan from the OP for purchasing the car. It is admitted fact that as per the agreement, the complainant paid certain amount towards installments but failed to pay all the installments. It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been seized by the OP. No agreement is filed to show the action of the OP as illegal. The principle of natural justice states that the before taking coercive action the parties should be given chance to be heard. In absence of any agreement we are of the view that the seizure of the vehicle without any notice is illegal. Only pre-sale notice is available on record. Once the seizure is illegal, the pre-sale notice can not be make sale valid. Therefore, the further action taken by the OP is found illegal. Thus, we are of view that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
9. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and same is confirmed and appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
