Delhi

East Delhi

CC/612/2012

ASHAD AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTOR - Opp.Party(s)

11 Oct 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                    CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

CC No.612/12:

In the Matter of:

Sh. Ashad Ahmed

R/o. E - 80/209, Jhilmil Colony,

Behind Vivek Vihar Police Station,

Delhi-110 095

Complainant

Vs

Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,

No.1, Gazipur, Patparganj,

Delhi-110 096

                                                                                                            Opposite Party

 

                                                  Date of Admission-13/08/2012

  Date of Order        -09/12/2015

ORDER

Sh. N.A.Zaidi, President:

The complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant had purchased a Tata 1109 Registration No.HR-56-5903 which was financed by the respondent.  A loan of Rs.6 lakhs was allowed on the basis of instalment of Rs.19,500/- per month. The complainant was paying the instalments as an honest man but due to some financial problem some instalments had lapsed.  He paid on 18.06.2010 a sum of Rs.49,000/- when his vehicle was going to deliver the material to TILCO. The musclemen of the respondent forcibly took possession of the vehicle despite the fact that he showed them the receipt of paying the pending instalments on 18.06.2010. The complainant visited the office of the respondent, he was forced to pay Rs.22,000/- but they released the vehicle on 21.06.2010. This has caused the mental pain, agony and harassment. This is highly illegal and unwarranted. It is in these circumstances that he has claimed Rs.8 lakhs for harassment, mental agony and pain and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

The respondent filed their written statement wherein they have taken the plea that the agreement between the parties is a non-statutory contract and both the parties are bound by its terms and conditions. The present complaint is barred by limitation as the vehicle was repossessed on 18.06.2010 and this complaint has been filed in 2012 after the lapse of limitation. They have also taken the plea that the complainant is not a consumer. The respondent is not rendering any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The loan was taken by the complainant for commercial purpose.  He has not pleaded that it was for self-employment. Plea of arbitration has also been raised. The vehicle was repossessed on account of the default committed by the respondent.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

In so far as the question of limitation is concerned it is contended by the respondent that it had first arisen on 18.06.2010; this vehicle was repossessed and was released on 21.06.2010 and the present complaint has been filed on 28.07.2012. As such the present complaint is barred by limitation. The counsel for the complainant submitted that this fact is not in dispute that the complainant vehicle was financed by the respondent. This has not been denied that on the day of occurrence of the incident the vehicle was not in the possession of the complainant. It is for the respondent to prove that on the date when this vehicle was seized, prior to that any notice was given to the complainant for deposit of the outstanding amount, if any.  The complainant has filed on record the receipts of deposit of Rs.49,000/- on 18.06.2010 and Rs.22,000/- on 19.06.2010. The receipt of 19.06.2010 shows that Rs.13,000/- were charged towards other dues and Rs.9,000/- on account of ODC.  When on 18.06.2010 he had already deposited the amount how this vehicle could be seized by the respondent without any notice. There is nothing on record that the respondents had so far given No Dues Certificate to the complainant despite receiving the entire amount from the complainant. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision, the financer is under an obligation to give notice to the borrower before initiating the proceedings for repossessing the vehicle. In the present case, they have not given any notice nor have they issued the No Dues Certificate despite having received the entire amount from the complainant. As such the cause of action in the present case shall be deemed to be continuing and they cannot take the plea of limitation from the date of repossessing the vehicle.

The respondent has also taken the plea that this complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle in question is a commercial vehicle and was being used for the commercial purpose. There is no averment in the complaint that this vehicle was being used by the complainant for earning the livelihood. The complainant counsel argued that in the present complaint it is not a question of the vehicle but it is the question of the conduct of the respondent under the law and the contract under which they had advanced him the loan for the vehicle. The complainant was under an obligation to repay the loan and it is admitted by the respondent in their WS that the loan was entirely paid by the complainant. The repossession of the vehicle in these circumstances amounts to arm twisting by the respondent for getting more money from the complainant under the agreement to which they were not entitled for.  As such no commerciality is involved so far as the question of vehicle being financed by the respondent is concerned. We find substance in the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the repossession of the vehicle by the respondent despite the fact that the entire amount was paid by him amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. The complainant was put to harassment and was forced to pay the additional amount which the respondent was not otherwise entitled for.  The complainant has also specifically stated on oath that when his vehicle was seized he was carrying goods which were delayed on account of the seizure of the vehicle by the respondent and he had suffered as a consequence thereof.

Taking all the above facts and circumstances into consideration, we allow this complaint and direct the respondent to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.22,000/- which he had paid to the respondent. We, further, award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of harassment he was subjected to by the respondent and it shall include the cost of litigation. The total amount should be paid by the respondent to the complainant within 45 days of this order and if not paid the complainant shall be entitled for interest on this amount at the rate of 9% p.a. till it is finally paid.

The copy of the order is sent to the parties as per rules.

 

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                      (N.A.Zaidi)

        Member                                                                                        President