Instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Shingara Singh complainant against opposite party Syal Investment Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, seeking direction against the opposite party to deliver back the possession of the Truck bearing <br /> <br /> No. POO8-V-7477 of the complainant and also monetary compensation for the loss of income from plying the Truck.<br /> <br /> 2. In nutshell the facts of the complaint are tht the complainant is <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> <br /> an illiterate person. He took loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under the Hire Purchase Agreement from the opposite parties which is dealing in finance. It is averred that he has already paid more than amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of different installments against the receipts issued by the opposite party albeit irregular basis. It is alleged that the opposite party attempted to take forcible possession of the truck from the complainant despite repayment of more than Rs.3,50,000/- including interest as a result of which he filed a civil suit in the Civil Court at Kapurthala for permanent injunction and Status Quo order dated 25.6.2006 was passed regarding the possession of the Truck in question. The opposite parties violated the status quo order of the civil court and took forcible possession of the Truck from him resulting into contempt proceedings pending against it in the civil court. It is further alleged that the forcible possession of the truck by the opposite party from him despite repayment of the loan amount, amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for which he is not only to the restoration of the truck in question but also compensation for the monetary loss suffered by him for the period in which he was deprived of plying the Truck as a source of his livelihood.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party failed to appear despite service and <br /> <br /> proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 14.8.2007.<br /> <br /> 4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence<br /> <br /> copies of receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C15, copy of order dated 25.6.2005 Ex.C16, copy of driving license Ex.C17, besides affidavit of complainant as Ex.C18 and closed the evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> <br /> have also perused the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced on record.<br /> <br /> 6. The complainant reiterated the averments of his complaint in his affidavit vide affidavit Ex.C18 about raising of the loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite parties for the purchase of the Truck on Hire Purchase Agreement and also returned the amount of Rs.3,50,000/- by way of different installments including the interest vide receipt Ex.C1 to Ex.C15. He further alleged about the taking forcible possession of the truck in question from him by the opposite party and consequent civil litigation as evidenced vide status quo order dated 25.6.05 Ex.C16. Though no Hire Purchase Agreement containing the terms and conditions of advancement of the loan for the purchase of the Truck has been filed on the record, nevertheless, no version in the affidavit Ex.C18 to that effect has not been rebutted by the opposite parties as it failed to contest the claim despite service. Receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 indicates that amount of Rs.2,99,700/- had been repaid to the opposite party. Be that as it may, law in our democratic set up does not permit the dubious and mischievous and unfair trade practice to achieve the object for recovery of the money by muscle power as clearly held by Hon'ble State Commission of Delhi reported as VI (2006) CPJ page 194 and also by our own Hon'ble National commission in another case reported as ABN AMRO BANK VS. SANGEET SRIVASTVA 2007 CTJ PAGE 606.<br /> <br /> 7. Therefore, going by the un-rebutted version of the complainant <br /> <br /> version of the complainant about repayment of the loan amount alongwith interest thereon, the opposite party had no justification<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> <br /> to repossess the vehicle forcibly from the custody of the complainant. The complainant has however failed to state anything in his affidavit Ex.C18 about the monetary loss suffered, as a result of forcible possession of th Truck taken by the opposite party from his custody nevertheless he assess the monetary compensation to the extent of <br /> <br /> Rs.7000/-. In the ultimate analysis of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint ex-parte and direct the opposite party to restore the possession of the Truck No. POO8-V-7477 to the complainant with monetary compensation of Rs.7000/- alongwith costs of Rs.500/- as litigation expenses within one month from the receipt of copy of this judgment. <br /> <br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Announced : ( Sushma Handoo) ( Sudha Sharma ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> <br /> 19.9.2007 Member Member President.<br />