Ms. Meghna Gautam V/s G.E. Capital Transportation
Financial Services Ltd.
Case No.1475/07
30.10.17
Present: Sh. A. T. Khan Adv. for the complainant
Sh. Alok Pandey Adv. for the OP
Arguments are heard. We proceed to dispose off the complaint.
As per the case made out in the complaint, the complainant had got truck No. HR-38L-7294 hypothecated with the OP finance company in October, 2003 and it was stipulated that the loan amount shall be paid in monthly EMIs of Rs.25567/- each. However, the OP illegally detained the said truck in the 3rd week of April, 2005 despite the fact that the complainant had already deposited 17 EMIs of Rs.25567/- each against the said loan though it was done by the OP under a misconception inasmuch as it was the truck bearing No. HR-38J-8043 which had to be seized by the OP but, however, the truck of the complainant was seized.
According to the complainant, she was very punctual in paying the EMis till the illegal seizure of her truck. However, the OP did not redress the grievances of the complainant despite legal notice. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to release/return the truck bearing No. HR-38L-7294 in its previous condition as it was on the date of seizure, to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as compensation from the date of seizure till realization with interest @ 12% p.a., to pay Rs.2 lacs towards mental pain and physical harassment and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
In the written statement the OP has inter-alia taken the plea that (1) the complaint is time barred (2) the vehicle in question was being put to use for commercial purpose and, hence, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined U/s 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that the complainant had defaulted in making the payment of the EMIs due on the said loan and there had been various occasions when the cheques issued by the complainant were returned unpaid by her bank and the OP sent number of intimations to the complainant regarding the same. It is stated that thereafter notice dated 28.03.2005 was sent to complainant by the OP thereby intimating her that against 16 installments falling due till that date only 14 installments had been paid and 2 installments were outstanding as on the date of notice. In para 3 of the facts in brief the OP has stated that after repossession, the vehicle in question was sold out for a sum of Rs.4,55,000/- and a sum of Rs.1,64,246/- is still outstanding as on date.
In the corresponding para 3 of the rejoinder the complainant has inter-alia stated that the OP has illegally repossessed the said vehicle and illegally sold out the same without the permission and consent of the complainant/ registered owner.
Parties have filed their respective affidavits in evidence.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the OP on 21.05.08. Therefore, if the complainant was not aware about the disposal of the vehicle, this fact had come to her notice atleast on 21.05.08. However, the complainant did not take any action and continued to contest the present complaint. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the subject matter of the complaint i.e. the truck in question had already been sold out by the OP in or about the year 2008 and, therefore, the first prayer of the complainant had become infructuous on the date of disposal of the vehicle by the OP. As far as other reliefs are concerned, those are consequential reliefs. Hence, we are constrained to record that the other reliefs cannot as well be granted to the complainant. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Complainant that the IDV of the vehicle in question on the date of disposal of the truck was Rs.8 lacs and the same had been sold out on a lesser amount does not come within the domain to be decided by this Forum while disposing off the present complaint. Therefore, we hold that after disposal of the truck the complaint had become infructuous.
In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the parties. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on 30.10.2017.
