Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/319/2016

Lovlish Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Harjeet Singh

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/319/2016
Date of Institution	:	09/05/2016
Date of Decision	:	23/01/2017

 

Lovlish Singh s/o Barkha Ram r/o House No.63, Ground Floor, Chandigarh Apartments, Barwala Road, Derabassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The Manager, Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., SCO 126-127, 1^st Floor, Sector 26, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harjeet Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Vikrant Guleria, Counsel for OP

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one Indigo-CS Tata car bearing registration No.PB-01-A-5543 after taking loan of Rs.4,14,000/- from the OP for tenure of 4 years.  The complainant entered into a contract dated 17.2.2015 as per which he had to pay Rs.11,017/- on 15^th of every month starting from 15.3.2015. As per the complainant, he was regularly paying his installments. However, on 15.4.2016, when the complainant alongwith his family was sitting in KFC Zirakpur, 5 unknown persons, allegedly employees of the OP, came and without any prior notice took his car which was having cash of Rs.15,000/- and 3 tola of gold. The said persons even refused the complainant to take the said belongings. At the time of taking recovery of the car, the said persons issued the repossessed vehicle inventory list. The complainant issued a legal notice to the OP, but, to no avail.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         OP in its written reply has admitted the factual matrix.  However, it has been averred that the complainant was not paying his installments regularly.  The OP took the car from the complainant as per the orders of Ms. Rekha, Additional District Judge, New Delhi (5), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.  It has been denied that there was any cash amount of Rs.15,000/- and 3 tola gold in the car.  It has been averred that the complainant had knowledge about the persons who were taking the car from him as he himself surrendered the car in question to the OP.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.4,14,000/- from the OP for a term of 4 years for purchasing the car bearing registration No.PB-01A-5543. The loan amount was payable in 48 monthly installments of Rs.11,017/- each. Copy of the contract agreement dated 22.2.2015 is on record at Annexure C-1.  It is the case of the complainant that he paid the instalments and the detail thereof is as under :-

Install-ment	Date	Cheque/ Ref. number	Receipt No.	Rupees	Mode
1.	16.03.2015	0000503168130553		11,017/-
2.	15.04.2015			11,017/-	Cash
3.	16.05.2015	0000505161053189		11,017/-
4.	15.06.2015			11,017/-	Cash
5.	15.07.2015	0000507153950242		11,017/-
6.	17.08.2015	0000508175866150		11,017/-
7.	24.09.2015		167504	11,500/-	Cash
8.	15.10.2015			11,017/-	Cash
9.	06.11.2015		167396	11,710/-	Cash
10.	18.12.2015		301524481	11,017/-	Cash
11.	15.01.2016			11,017/-	Cash
12.	15.02.2016			11,017/-	Cash
13.	15.03.2016			11,017/-	Cash
14.	15.04.2016		300122434	12,000/-	Cash

The amount was paid on 24.9.2015, 6.11.2015, 18.12.2015 and 15.4.2016 respectively in cash and receipts account for Annexure C-3.

        It is further the case of the case of the complainant that on 15.4.2015, some unknown persons came in a Swift Dezire car bearing No.CH-01-BA-4776 and took the car belonging to the complainant forcibly which was having a cash amount of Rs.15,000/- and 3 tola gold in it.  The persons taking forcible possession of the car gave reference of the OP and claimed that they were employees of the OP company. But, however, the OP could not take law into its hand.  It was also incumbent upon the OP to issue prior notice to the complainant before repossessing the car in dispute.  Even if it is presumed that the complainant was a defaulter, even then repossessing of the car without service of prior legal notice would amount to an illegal act on the part of the OP.  It is contended that the complainant is entitled to recovery of the car as well as compensation, belongings and litigation expenses as requested vide the instant complaint. 

7.         But, however, from a close examination of facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.  The complainant is guilty of suppressing material facts. As a matter of fact, since the complainant was a defaulter, the OP invoked the arbitration clause and the Arbitrator passed the award.  On the basis of the award, learned Additional District Judge, Delhi passed the order directing the complainant/respondent Lovish Singh to pay Rs.3,83,403.62, copy of the order is Ex.OP-3.  Sh. Gaurav Sharma was appointed the receiver with a direction to take the possession of the vehicle in question.  It was further directed that the vehicle shall not be disposed of by the OP/petitioner without permission of the Court. On the basis of the court order, the possession of the car in dispute was obtained by the receiver. 
8.         The contention of the complainant dashes to the ground that the car was forcibly repossessed by the OP.  The OP also got registered a DDR at P.S. Zirakpur dated 15.4.2016 regarding repossession of the car, copy whereof is Ex.OP-4, which clearly states that the car was taken into possession in view of the court order.  Document Ex.OP-6 clearly shows that the complainant was supplied with a copy of the court order and he signed the endorsement to that effect with further certification that “no issue stands or valuable pending with the car”.  Now contending that amount of Rs.15,000/- alongwith 3 tola gold was lying in the car in dispute at the time of repossession is nothing, but, an afterthought to circumvent the OP to come to terms with the complainant.  The entire case of the complainant is based on cooked up facts and there is also entirely no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 
9.         In view of the above discussion, the instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23.01.2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg	Member	Member	President