DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No.496 of 2010] Date of Institution:05.08.2010 Date of Decision: 22.07.2011 ----------------------------------- Smt. Surinder Kaur wife of Sh. Amarpreet Singh resident of Village Bajheri, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab). ---Complainant. V E R S U S Tata Motor Finance Company Limited, SCO No.1124-25, Sector 22, Chandigarh through its Manager. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER Argued By: Sh. Mohit Malik, Advocate for the complainant. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Smt. Surinder Kaur has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Pay a sum of Rs.2,07,000/- as costs of ornaments lying in the vehicle. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as cash lying in the vehicle. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as the price of the vehicle. v) Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that she got financed her Tata Indica Car bearing Regd. No.PB-01-1077 from OP. She borrowed a sum of Rs.2,68,000/- from the OP, which was to be repaid in 60 installments. A loan agreement was also executed between the parties on 7.4.2008. According to the complainant, she had been depositing the installments regularly. It is averred that due to domestic problems, she failed to deposit eight instalments. On 29.7.2010, the complainant was asked by one Arvind, an employee of OP to deposit the due amount by 30.7.2010. Accordingly, on 30.7.2010, the complainant along with his driver approached the OP Bank to pay the due amount. The driver parked the vehicle in the parking area of Sector 22. It is averred that when the complainant came back from the public toilet after urinating, she found the vehicle missing. The driver told that Arvind, one Sikh gentlemen and three other persons of OP Bank had forcibly taken away the vehicle in question. According to the complainant, some gold articles weighing 11 ½ Tolas along with her purse containing Rs.50,000/- were lying in the car. It has further been pleaded that the above said action of OP-Bank 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 reply filed by OP, the factum of financing the vehicle in question from it by the complainant has been admitted. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has herself admitted default in the payment of installments. As per the OP, the possession of the vehicle has been taken by Sh. Arvind under the orders of learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. He was appointed as receiver by the said court. Thus, according to the OP, the possession has been taken in accordance with law. It has further been pleaded that in case, the complainant wishes to settle the matter and take back the vehicle, she could do so by paying the dues of the OP Bank. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. The complainant filed replication wherein she denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record. 6. The case of the complainant is that she had been regularly paying the monthly installments of the loan but due to some financial difficulty she could not pay eight installments. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the vehicle of the complainant was forcibly taken by the musclemen of OPs without following due procedure of law on 30.07.2010 when it was parked in the parking of Sector 22, Chandigarh. 7. On the other hand, the contention of the OP-Bank is that possession of the vehicle in question has been taken over by the receiver appointed by the court of Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi vide its order dated 30.06.2010. Therefore, there is no illegality in taking over the possession of the vehicle. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the OP has placed on record the copy of the order dated 30.06.2010 passed by Sh.Arun Kumar Arya, Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. From the perusal of this order, it is evident that Mr. Arvind, an official of the OP-Bank was appointed as a receiver and was authorised to take possession of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances, the possession of the vehicle in question was taken in accordance with law. 8. Ratio of the cases titled as Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijaylaxmi reported in III(2007) CPJ-161 (NC) and Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, 2007(2) ACJ-088 (SC) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case as in the cases cited above, the vehicles were re-possessed without any order/authority of any court/competent authority. 9. There is no material on record to prove that gold articles weighing 11 ½ Tolas along with cash of Rs.50,000/- were lying in the car except a self serving affidavit of the complainant. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that 11 ½ Tolas gold ornaments along with cash of Rs.50,000/- were lying in the car at the time of taking over the possession of the car in question. 10. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OP. 11. In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 22nd July, 2011. (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Ad/-
(DISTRICT FORUM-II) COMPLAINT CASE NO.496 OF 2010 [ORDER] Argued By: None. --- The case was reserved on 19.07.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 22.07.2011 [PRESIDENT] [MEMBER]
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
