Order No. 7 dt. 05/05/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner in respect of the vehicle no.LPO 1512 TC/55 COWL standard bus. The o.p. is a finance company. The complainant visited the office of o.p. for taking loan for purchasing the vehicle. At the time of taking loan the complainant did not anticipated any foul play by o.p. and on the basis of good faith at the time of seeking loan the complainant put signatures on the various blank papers. The vehicle was transferred to the complainant subsequently by o.p. finance company on 15.2.15 and the complainant came to learn that an amount of Rs.14,49,500/- was sanctioned. No formal agreement was executed. The complainant repeatedly requested the o.p. to furnish the necessary papers and documents of the vehicle to the complainant but no assistance was provided to the complainant. The o.p. started to claim the interest as per the flat rate and not at the rate of interest charged by nationalized bank.
It was further stated by the complainant that on 4.6.16 at about 9-30 p.m. while the said vehicle was plying through Chittaranjan Avenue a group of persons took possession of the vehicle forcibly. The complainant informed the said fact to Hare Street P.S. but no action was taken. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. not to take possession of the vehicle no.WB 76A 0754 and if the vehicle is possessed by o.p. the same is to be released by o.p.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant approached the o.p. for availing credit facility for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle. After discussion the loan was sanctioned by o.p. to the tune of Rs.14,54,000/-. The sum was utilized by the complainant for purchasing the standard bus. The complainant at the time of taking loan agreed to pay the monthly installment of Rs.40,500/- each. Accordingly an agreement was entered into on 30.12.14. The complainant failed to make any installment and as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement the bus was hypothecated by o.p. and accordingly the bus was taken possession by o.p. There was no illegality was committed by o.p., therefore the case filed the complainant is to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant took loan from o.p. for purchasing the bus.
- Whether the loan was sanctioned.
- Whether the complainant paid the installments as agreed by him.
- Whether the bus taken possession by o.p. committed any deficiency in service on their part.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that at the time of purchasing the bus the complainant had the discussion with o.p. and after discussion it was stated that o.p. would pay Rs.14,49,500/- and the bus was purchased by the complainant. It was further brought to our notice of the complainant that at the time of purchasing the bus and before entering into the contract with o.p., the o.p. took several signatures of the complainant on blank papers which were subsequently used by o.p. against the complainant. The complainant on numerous occasions requested the o.p. to handover the documents in respect of the said vehicle but not paper was handed over to the complainant. Subsequently the vehicle was forcibly taken by o.p. for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for releasing the vehicle in favour of the complainant and also prayed for other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was hypothecated to o.p. Since the finance was provided by o.p. and as per the terms of the agreement of loan paid by o.p. to the complainant for purchasing the vehicle in question it was the incumbent duty of the complainant to honour the terms and conditions of the said agreement. In the loan agreement it was specifically stated that the complainant should pay EMI @ Rs.40,500/-. The complainant failed to pay a single farthing towards the EMI and by manufacturing a false allegation against the o.p. that no document was provided to the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan to him and the complainant did not put signature on the documents. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for o.p. argued that the complaint filed the complainant is based on manufactured facts and as such the same is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is undisputed fact that the complainant took loan from o.p. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of sanctioning loan the financer certainly would obtain the signature from the borrower to make the borrower liable to pay the amount paid by o.p. The complainant as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement put his signatures on the documents and thereafter the loan was sanctioned. With the loan amount paid by o.p. the complainant purchased the vehicle. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant ought to have paid the EMI to reimburse the loan obtained by him from o.p. But the complainant in order to show his bonafide that he paid any EMI to o.p. after the purchase of the vehicle no document has been filed to that effect. The complainant alleged that some signatures were obtained by o.p. on some blank papers. It is not at all believable since the documents produced by o.p. shows that the documents were of printed documents and the complainant put his signatures on those documents. In order to manufacture a false case against the o.p. the complainant took such plea that o.p. obtained signatures on some blank papers. The complainant on the contrary failed to discharge his liability to show that he paid any EMI towards the said loan amount obtained from o.p. as a corollary to that the o.p. as per the terms of the agreement took possession of the vehicle. In this respect we can rely on the decision reported in 2017(2) CPR 95 (NC) wherein it was held that taking possession of vehicle on the ground of non payment of installment is legal right of financer. On the basis of the said ruling as well as the facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant failed to pay any installment and the o.p. accordingly took possession of the vehicle and as such, we hold that no illegality was committed by o.p. for which the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.231/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
The interim order for restraining the taking possession of the vehicle no.WB 76A-0754 is hereby vacated.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
