West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/104/2015

Anadi Charan Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

&

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

Complaint Case No.104/2015

                                                       

Anadi Charan Rana..…………………………Complainant.

Versus

                           The Manager, Tata Motors Finance Ltd., Kharagpur………..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Subal Chakraborty, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr.  Somnath Guine, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -26/02/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President–Complaint’s , in brief, is as    follows :-

                          The complainant purchased a Pick-Up-Van being Reg. No.WB-33B/9956 with financial assistance by hire purchase agreement with the Op-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. vide loan agreement dated 26/09/2013 for his self employment and the complainant made payment of Rs.2,55,902/- till 03/03/2015 and thereafter as per schedule  of EMI list he also paid Rs.57,500/- to the opposite party. As per agreement, the EMI is fixed at Rs.18,270/- commencing from 26/09/2013. Due to bad season of business, the complainant could not make payment according to EMI list but he tried to repay the amount always. Inspite of giving payment of  Rs.57,500/-, the opposite party did not enter the said amount in his loan account by practicing fraud. On 14.08/2015, when the complainant went to the office of the opposite party for making payment of EMI then the opposite party illegally detained the vehicle of  the complainant with false demand of non-payment of EMI and also asked the complainant to make payment of all installment at a time otherwise they

                                                                                                                                                        Contd…………….P/2

 

                                                                                         ( 2 )

        will not release the vehicle. For such act the opposite party, the complainant is now jobless and he has become an unemployment youth. The complainant went to the office of the opposite party for making payment of the remaining amount of loan but the opposite party did not co-operate with him opposite party also did not serve any notice for recovery of the vehicle and for making payment of all dues and without serving any notice, the opposite party has detained the vehicle forcibly from the complainant  on 14/08/2015. Such act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint praying for an order of return of the vehicle and for supply of statement of account of loan and for other reliefs.

                          Opposite party has contested this case by filing a written objection.

                           Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite party that the complainant has manifestly failed to adhere to the repayment schedule and an amount of Rs.1,14,327/- is outstanding till 23/09/2015 and Rs.28,537.29/-  is outstanding toward O.D.C. excluding future EMI. It  is submitted by the opposite party that the all payments made by the complainant have been duly entered in the account of the complainant and the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle after execution of a surrender letter as he failed to pay the EMI and the opposite party has every right to sell the vehicle as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement and surrender letter.

                                                      Point for decision

                                   Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as prayed for ?                      

        Decision with reasons

                  In this case, neither the complainant nor the opposite party adduced any sort of evidence either oral or documentary. 

                          Admittedly, the complainant purchased the vehicle in question after taking financial assistance under a hire purchase agreement dated 26/09/2013 with the    Op-Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Admittedly after the payment of few installments the complainant failed to repay the loan amount as per EMI schedule. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question has been repossessed by the opposite party on and from 14/08/2015. According to the complainant, the opposite party forcibly detained the vehicle with false demand of non-payment of EMI. As against this, the case of the opposite party is that the complainant himself surrendered the vehicle as he failed to pay the EMI and in support of such contention the opposite party has filed a photo copy of surrender letter (marked annexure-c). At the time of hearing of argument, it

                                                                                                                                                          Contd…………….P/3

 

                                                                                          ( 3 )

         was submitted by the complainant that at the time of loan agreement said surrender letter was got singed by him without explaining the contents of the same. It is not believable that the complainant who purchased the said vehicle for his self employment would voluntarily surrender the vehicle which is the only source of income by self employment. We are therefore constrained to hold that the opposite party forcibly repossessed the vehicle without serving any notice prior to such repossession. It is the well settled principle of law that forcible repossession of vehicle is against the settled principle of law. It is also well settled that method of recovery of vehicle in case of hire purchase agreement should be in pursuance of due process of law and use of muscle power is not permissible. Here is the present case, we find that without due process of law, the opposite party forcibly took repossession of the vehicle in question which is not permissible in law and thereby the opposite party is guilty for deficiency in service.   For such illegal repossession of the vehicle the complainant could not run his transport business by that vehicle which was purchased for his self employment. We are therefore of the view that the complainant is entitled to an order of return of the vehicle in question and an order of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of his business due to illegal detention of the vehicle.  However the opposite party would be at liberty to recover the unpaid amount of loan by due process of law. The petition of complaint should be therefore allowed.

                                  Hence, it is,

                                                                   Ordered,

                                                         that the complaint case no.104/2015  is allowed  on contest with cost. Op-Tata Motors Finance Ltd.  is directed to return the disputed vehicle being No.WB 33B/9956 to the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from  this  date of order.

   Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.     

                        Dictated & Corrected by me

                                         Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

                                     President                                    Member                                 President

                                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur