D.o.F: 8/2/06<br /> D.o.O:25/6/08 <br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD <br /> CC.NO.11/06 <br /> Dated this, the 25th day of June 2008 <br /> <br /> PRESENT: <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SRI.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> M.K.Noufal,<br /> S/o P.Mohammad Kunhi,<br /> Hudha Manzil,Bendichal, Po.Thekkil, : Complainant<br /> Via.chengala,Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> 1. Manager, Shriram Investments Ltd,<br /> Ist floor,Koothrat Towers,<br /> Near Nedungadi Bank,Court Road,<br /> Manjeri.<br /> 2. Manager, shriram Investments Ltd, : Opposite Parties<br /> Land Mark Centre, <br /> Opp.New Busstand, Kasaragod.<br /> 3.The Manager,<br /> Kerala Transport Development Finance<br /> Corporation Ltd,03, Saphalyam,<br /> Trida, Playam, Trivandrum<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant is that his vehicle KL-14/E 1707 is illegally seized by the opposite parties No.1&2 on the ground of default in making monthly payments and as a result he could not produce the vehicle for registration before registering authority and to transfer a pukka permit which was available with him in the route Kasaragod- Kanhangad. Eventhough the Opposite parties given back the vehicle to the complainant on payment of Rs.40,000/-. The vehicle is not having any permit to ply and hence now he is keeping the vehicle idle. The complainant therefore claiming Rs.15,00,000/- towards the loss of pukka permit and costs of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties 1&2 contends that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the Sec.(8) of Arbitration and Concilation Act since the transaction of the complainant and opposite party is basing on an agreement and the agreement contains an arbitration clause as per which the dispute should have been referred to arbitrator. The IA.NO.61/06 filed by Opposite parties No 1&2 to refer the case to arbitration is dismissed to day vide separate order. Opposite party No.3 has not filed any version. On merits Opposite parties 1&2 contends that the complainant was a defaulter and as per the stipulation the complainant should have been repaid Rs.15965/- each on every month for 59 months commencing from 20/12/03. As he failed to repay the monthly instalments the vehicle is repossessed and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties 1&2.<br /> 3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his contention and Exts.A1 to A12 marked. The Manager of opposite party No.2 filed counter affidavit and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. Arguments of both sides heard and the documents perused carefully.<br /> 4. The complainant availed a loan of Rs.6,40,000/- with a condition to repay Rs.941888/- in 59 monthly instalments. But he committed default in making monthly instalment payments and hence the vehicle was repossessed. According to opposite parties they can repossess the vehicle and the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India upheld the right of the financier to repossess the vehicle.<br /> 5. We fully agree with the argument of opposite party No.1’s counsel that they have got the right to repossess the vehicle. But the question is whether the mode of repossession is through the due process of law or not? If the re-possession is through illegal way like engaging musclemen then ofcourse the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. <br /> <br /> 6. In the case of Citicorp Maruthi Finance Ltd. Vs. Vijayalaxmi III(2007) CPJ 161(NC), the Hon’ble National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has made certain observations. The relevant, pithy portion is quoted here<br /> “ When a vehicle is purchased by a person(consumer) by borrowing money from the money lender/financier/banker the consumer is the owner of the vehicle and not the money lender/financier/banker unless the ownership is transferred.<br /> <br /> In a democratic country having well established independent judiciary and having various laws it is impermissible for the money lender/financier/banker to take possession of the vehicle for which loan is advanced by use of force.<br /> <br /> Legal or judicial process may be slow but it is no excuse for employing musclemen to re-possess the vehicle for which loan is given. Such type of ‘Instant justice’ cannot be permitted in a civilized society where there is effective rule of law. Otherwise it would result in anarchy, that too when the borrower retorts and uses the force…..’’<br /> <br /> 7. The National Commission further held “ where the vehicle is forcefully seized and sold by the money lender/financier/banker it would be just and proper to award reasonable compensation to the complainant ‘Reasonable Compensation’ would depend upon facts of each case””.<br /> <br /> 8. In view of this it is clear that the opposite parties are re-possessed the vehicle illegally, hence liable to compensate the complainant eventhough the vehicle was returned back on payment of Rs.40,000/-<br /> 9. Complainant claiming Rs.15,00,000/- towards the loss of pukka permit which has no basis at all. Further as revealed from Ext.A12 the complainant has taken up the matter of cancellation of Pukka permit to Hon,’ble High Court of Kerala and it has not attained finality . Moreover, in Ext.A12 the value of permit is shown as Rs.10,00,000/-. Since the issue regarding the permit is not yet finalized, it is not fair to award any compensation on this ground. The contention of the complainant that he has not committed any ‘willful ’ default in making the monthly instalment is appears to be feeble. The complainant availed the loan with a specific stipulation to repay the amount within 59 monthly instalments and he has committed default in repayment.<br /> <br /> In view of the discussions above, we hereby direct the Opposite parties Nos 1&2 to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant due to the loss, hardships and mental agony caused to him for illegal re-possession of the vehicle KL 14E 1707 with a cost of Rs.2000/-. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which on application by the complainant proceedings U/S 25 & 27 of Consumer Protection Act will be initiated.<br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts:<br /> A1-Conductor’s license <br /> A2-Repayment chart<br /> A3 & A4-Acknowledgement receipts<br /> A5-31/12/03 copy of letter issued by complainant to RTO kasaragod <br /> A6-7/04/04 copy of lawyer notice <br /> A7-19/07/04 Release letter given by op1<br /> A8-Form 22-A<br /> A9-Letter to RTO by complainant<br /> A10-Copy of RC book<br /> A11-Permit abstract<br /> A12-4/01/06 Registered lawyer notice<br /> B1-Hire purchase cum guarantee agreement<br /> <br /> Sd/ Sd/ Sd/<br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> eva<br /> /Forwarded by Order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent <br />