Briefly stated the facts of the case as can be gathered from the record is that the Complainant intend to purchase a pick up van took loan from Chholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. on 5th July 2012 amounting to Rs. 4,70,000/-. The Complainant agreed upon with the Opposite party to repay the loan in 47 equal installments which started from July 2012. The Complainant purchased one 407 Pick-up Truck from OSL Automotive Ltd, Siliguri but the Complainant unable to use the said vehicle as it was not roadworthy till September 2012. The main contention of the Complainant is that though the vehicle was not roadworthy, the Complainant had to pay the installment as per Loan Agreement but he was in a position to pay total Rs. 86,788/- up to March 2013 and the Complainant have to pay Rs.1,16972/- up to September 2013 to the Opposite Party. The Complainant prayed for time to repay the loan amount to the Opposite Party but the Opposite party created pressure on him to repay the loan for which the Complainant compelled to promise in written that he will repay the loan amount on 26th August 2013. Surprisingly, on 17.08.2013 the Opposite Party repossessed the vehicle through their muscleman from the garage in absence of the Complainant. The Complainant prayed for time to repay the loan but to no good and the Opposite Party willfully repossessed the vehicle. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant compelled to file the present case seeking relief(s) and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Opposite Party after receiving the notice appeared through Ld. Agent, took several dates for filing W/V but ultimately failed to file W/V for which this case proceeded with Ex-parte against the Opposite Parties.
The Complainant filed Evidence on affidavit but no original documents are filed with the Evidence. The date of Final Order deferred for want of original documents. On the date fixed for delivery of Final Order the original documents with Rulings has been filed by the complainant. Considered.
In the light of the facts and circumstances following moot points are necessarily came out for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer of O.Ps as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are the opposite parties liable in any way to compensate the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed documents in the record and heard Ex-parte argument of the complainant. Prescribed evidence on affidavit of the complainant.
Point No. 1.
The Complainant intended to purchase a vehicle entered in an agreement with the Opposite Parties, took loan from the Opposite Parties with an assurance to get proper service. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties so established from the record we are in considered view that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties.
Point No. 2.
The Complainant has filed this case with a claim of Rs.4,05,788/- which is far less than Rs.20,00,000/- and the branch office of the Opposite Party Company is situated in this district also cause of action arose within this district. Hence, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try the case beyond any manner of doubt.
Point No. 3 & 4.
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a 407 Pick-up truck with financial assistance from the O.P Company. The Complainant took loan from the Opposite Parties amounting to Rs. 4,70,000/- but after certain period he failed to pay the EMI as agreed upon. By not getting the EMI/loan amount the Opposite Party forcefully repossessed the vehicle of the Complainant without any prior intimation.
On giving a close look to the materials on record it appears that vide Loan Agreement dated 27.06.2012, loan, in the sum of Rs. 4,70,000/-was advanced to the Complainant to purchase a vehicle, financed by Ops, the Chholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. It was stipulated in the agreement that the said amount would be repayable by the Complainant in 47 equal installments. The Annexure “C” series revealed that the Complainant paid total Rs. 82,488/- and thereafter due to his financial crisis stopped the payment. Evidently, the Complainant by filing a representation dated 14.08.2013 to the OPs prayed for time for further payment that too was unheeded.
It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties without any prior intimation repossessed the vehicle of the Complainant and admittedly the vehicle was sold which is against the settled principal of law. It is the further case of the Complainant that due to some unavoidable circumstances he failed to repay the loan thus, by letter dated 14.08.2013 he prayed that he will repay the balance amount on 26.08.2013 but the O.P. forcefully repossessed the vehicle on 17.08.2013 behind the knowledge of the Complainant.
It is the further case of the Complainant that he did not ply the vehicle up to two months after purchase as it was took time to make the vehicle roadworthy for which financial crisis arises and the Complainant was not in a position to clear the balance amount.
Factual position of the present case is that the Complainant took loan from the OPs to purchase the Vehicle on 05.07.2012, he was a defaulter, and the vehicle in question was forcibly seized for which the source of income by plying the vehicle has been restrained and as a result the Complainant failed to pay the installments. The vehicle was purchased on 05.07.2012, repossessed by the OPs on 17.08.2013 and the same was sold on 31.08.2013, these acts of the OPs are against the settled principle of law.
In this juncture, reliance has been placed upon the Rulings reported in 2014 CJ 630 (N C) where the Hon’ble Commission hold that- Vehicle cannot be repossessed by Financier without necessary authorization.
In the case before us the vehicle was forcibly repossessed by the OPs behind back the knowledge of the Complainant. This is in clear violation of the law as laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter in ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Prakash Kaur and others, (2007) 2 SCC,711.
In the present case the Opposite Parties, the Financier have not stopped at repossession of the vehicle rather sold it by adopting the arm of Unfair Trade Practice that is beyond the loan agreement and thus the Deficiency in service of the OPs cannot be ruled out.
In the case in hand the Opposite Parties did not come forward before this Forum by filing Written Version, Evidence to contest the allegation of the Complainant that seems that they have nothing to challenge the case.
In the light of foregoing discussion it is reasonably be presume that the Opposite Parties have nothing to challenge the case. As such on the basis on Evidence and material on record, we are of considered opinion that the complaint is deserve to be allowed.
As it is already proved that the OPs have deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get reasonable relief.
Thus, the complaint succeeds on merits by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The Case be and the same is allowed in ex-parte against Opposite Parties with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Opposite Parties are directed to release of the amount of Rs. 82,488/- paid by the Complainant back to him along with compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for causing mental pain and agonies of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay the entire amount jointly and/or severally within 45 days from the date of this order failing of which the Opposite Parties have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
