DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ranbir Sood w/o Sh. Puneet Sood, #425, Jeevan Aadhar, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

                                       ---Complainant.

Versus

Tata Motor Finance Ltd., SCO No.1124-1125, Sector 22B, Chandigarh through its Manager.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by: Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant

                        None for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Smt. Ranbir Sood has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following relief :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the OP be directed to hand over the vehicle to the complainant after taking the principal amount and interest due i.e. Rs.1,02,757/- without charging ODC, Repo charges and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice and mental agony suffered by the complainant alongwith Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses in the interest of justice.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2007, she got financed a Tata Indica Car from the opposite party.  She took a loan of Rs.2,90,000/-. The loan was to be repaid in 36 equal installments of Rs.9,376/- each (Rs.3,37,746/-).  According to the complainant, due to some unavoidable circumstances in the family, she could not pay some installments due to which the said vehicle, bearing registration number CH-02-2411, was repossessed by the opposite party on 3.5.2010 alongwith the RC. The inventory was prepared and it was got signed from her husband. It has been averred that the complainant had already paid Rs.2,34,989/- to the opposite party as per the statement dated 6.7.2010.  According to the complainant, when she approached the opposite party for release of the vehicle, it gave statement which was for much higher amount. 

                   It has further been averred that when the complainant sought information under the RTI Act, she was shocked to receive a copy of the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the ld. District Judge, Rohini, regarding the repossession of the vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 8.4.2011 upon the opposite party in response to which she received reply dated 2.5.2011 mentioning therein that the vehicle in question had been sold and after adjusting  the amount of sale proceeds, Rs.26,863/- was still due from her.  According to the complainant, the act and conduct of the opposite party in selling the vehicle amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In the written statement filed by the opposite party it has been admitted that it had agreed to provide finance facility of Rs.2,90,000/- to the complainant, for which finance charges were Rs.47,212/- and the total contract value, which the complainant had to pay, was Rs.3,37,212/- for which Loan cum Hypothecation Cum Guarantee Agreement dated 17.10.2007 was entered into between the parties.  The term of the agreement required that the said loan was to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs.9,367/- each.  It has been averred that the complainant started defaulting in the payment of monthly installments and did not pay any heed to clear the outstanding amount despite repeated requests and reminders.  According to the opposite party, it was left with no option, but to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the said Hon’ble Court was pleased to appoint a receiver to take possession of the said vehicle.  It has been averred that the dispute was referred to the Arbitration of an Arbitrator who passed award dated 30.4.2010 of Rs.1,64,523/-.  According to the opposite party after the sale of the vehicle the amount was duly adjusted against the awarded amount and an amount of Rs.26,863/- is still due and outstanding against the complainant.  It has been averred that the vehicle was sold at the available price according to the prevailing market condition after following due process of law. According to opposite party, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           On 16.8.2012, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the opposite party.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act even in the absence of the opposite party. 

5.                           We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Admittedly the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2,90,000/- which was to be repaid in 36 monthly instalments of Rs.9,367/- each.  It is also the admitted case of the parties that the vehicle was repossessed on 3.5.2010 on the basis of the orders passed by the ld. District Judge, Rohini. As per the said order, the outstanding balance, against the complainant, as on the date of filing of the petition before the said Court, was Rs.1,49,153/-.  As per the statement (Annexure C-3), on 6.7.2010 the outstanding amount against the complainant was Rs.1,60,324.86.  The Arbitrator vide award dated 30.4.2010, held that a sum of Rs.1,64,523/- was outstanding against the complainant.  However, the opposite party has not come with clean hands regarding the fact as to how the car was sold and what procedure was followed. Neither the details of auction have been mentioned in the written statement nor any document has been placed on record to show that proper procedure was followed for auction of the car.

7.                           The case of the complainant is that she came to know about the repossession order of the car and auction thereof on the basis of the information received through the RTI. On the other hand, the Opposite party has failed to place on record any document to show that any notice was given to the complainant regarding the sale of the car.  In these circumstances, from the evidence on record, it is not proved that the car was sold after giving proper notice to the complainant and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.   Further, neither the amount for which the car was sold, has been mentioned in the written statement nor any document has been placed on record to prove as to on what price the car was sold.  In these circumstances, there is no material on record to prove that a sum of Rs.26,863/- is still outstanding against the complainant, as alleged by the opposite party, after adjusting the price of the car at which it was sold.  Hence, in such circumstances, the demand of Rs.26,863/- is illegal.

8.                           As the car had been sold in the absence of the complainant, so the opposite party has no right to demand any further amount from the complainant and it will be deemed that the entire loan amount has been repaid.  The complainant, admittedly, has failed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,64,523/- which, according to the Opposite party, was found to be outstanding against her as per the award given by the Arbitrator dated 30.4.2010.  The vehicle in question has already been sold.  In these circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to the possession of the vehicle nor any compensation can be awarded to her.  Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.   However, it is made clear that the opposite party shall not make any further demand towards the loan amount for the reasons given above.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22.08.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

hg