D.O.F:13/06/2019
D.O.O:30/11/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.111/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sanjay Krishnan
S/o Kunhikrishnan, R/at Pilapadu House, Achikanam P.O : Complainant
Anadashram (Via) 671351
(ADV: Karthik Ramachandran.K)
- The Manager
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd,
1st Floor, 1st Block, City Centre,
New Bus Stand, Kanahangad, Kasaragod.
- The Manager, : Opposite Parties
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd
101 -105 1st Floor, Bwing, Shiva Chember
CBD – Belapur , Navy – Mumbai -400614
(Adv: Babuchandran. K)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle for self employment. The vehicle is subject to hire purchase agreement with the Opposite Party. Complainant availed finance to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 28/03/2018. He received a quotation dated 03/11/2018 for a project of children park in chennadukkam and finally work contract is issued to him, and completed the work. The officials proposed to visit the site on 18/03/2019. But staff of Opposite Party without any prior notice seized the vehicle thereby he couldn’t use the vehicle at the need of the hours. He has paid the instalment with huge interest but he suffered mental tension, agony and despite regular payment of loan, vehicle in disposed illegally, complainant claimed release of the vehicle, seized by Opposite Party with costs and compensation.
2. The Opposite Party filed its written version. The case of Opposite Party is that a written agreement is entered into by the parties dated 28/03/2018 obtained Rs. 3 lakh covered by records. Opposite Party sent a notice on 18/03/2019 and seized the vehicle on 19/03/2019 informed to the complainant. After seizure notice is sent but did not respond so Opposite Party sold the vehicle on 22/05/2019 for Rs. 1,10,000/- and adjusted with the loan due. Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 155679/-
3. An interim order of release of vehicle is issued on 13/06/2019 subject to paying Rs. 20,000/- towards arrear. But before that the vehicles is sold by opposite party.
4. The complainant filed chief affidavit. He was cross examined by Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did not adduce oral evidence complainant produced supply order dated 03/01/2018 and 01/08/2018 marked as Ext A1 and A2 letter from Opposite Party marked as Ext A3.
5. In view of the contentions raised by the parties and evidence adduced both documentary and oral the following points arise for consideration.
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party?
b) Whether complainant entitled for the reliefs in the complaint? If so for what reliefs?
6. Complainant admitted the loan as Rs. 3 lakh in his evidence. He denied having received seizure notice having knowledge of auction sale. Suggestion that no loss is caused due to auction denied by complainant. Specific instances of deficiency in service pointed out by complainant as no prior notice of seizure no notice of sale, sold in such a hurry to deny its benefit. So early period even though interim order is passed in IA 112/2021 dated 13/09/2019.
7. The honourable Suprim Court has warned financial institutions and banks against forcible talking away of vehicles under hire-purchase agreement when there is a default in payment of loans and said they could be saddled with punitive costs if they did so. “ “Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to hire purchase agreement, the recovery process to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the agreement also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force but does not entitle herein (the financier) on the strength of the agreement to take back the possession of the vehicle by use of force.
8. There is no impediment to the financier talking re-possession of the vehicle when the hirer did not make payment of instalments in terms of the hire purchase agreement. But the service of proper notice on the hirer was necessary for re-possession of a vehicle which was the subject of a hire purchase agreement or else financier is liable to suffer the consequence of non service of proper notice.
9. The financier claimed to have issued notice to the complainant before talking possession of the vehicle and also pre-sale notice. The object of a notice before talking possession of a vehicle on hire under a hire purchase agreement, was to enable the hirer, to make a written request to the financier to receive the hire purchase agreement upon payment of all outstanding dues. Many self employed hires, operated vehicles taken on hire, to earn a livelihood. Parties are put to sudden in conveniences by reasons of re-possession of the vehicle.
10. On the face of the averments in the complaint, the complainant has approached the financier after possession of the vehicle was taken to be told that the financier had taken possession of the vehicle, as the complainant had defaulted in payment of instalments. The financier had not agreed to release the vehicle, on the assurance of the complainant to clear outstanding instalments and to pay future instilments in time, requirements to serve notice before re-possession was implicit in the hire purchase agreement non-service of proper notice would be tantament amount to deficiency in service for breach of the hire purchase agreement giving rise to claim in damages. The complainant would be entitled to compensatory damages, based on an assessment of the loss caused to the complainant, by reason of the omission to give notice.
11. The complaint was filed on 13/06/2019 interim order was passed on the same day. First appearance was on 13/07/2019. Vehicle seized on 19/03/2019 and sold it on 22/05/2019. Opposite Party seized a car without issuing notice to a person who had borrowed money to buy the vehicle. Opposite Party failed to demonstrate its claim that it had issued notices to the complainant on the very same day or prior to seizure . it is also “silent” on the ‘Secret” manner in which it had sold the car to recover the amount due to it. Since the company failed to provide details to the District Commissions it has to be informed that the company has either not sold the vehicle or has sold it clandestinely for a lesser price. Opposite Party did not adduce any evidence in this regard.
12. The actions of the Opposite party, deprived the complainant of his vehicle evidence in this regard his vehicle which is been sold without intimation him. Complainant had purchased the car by borrowing Rs. 3 lakh from the Opposite Party on 2018. He could not pay for the subsequent periods. The company had seized vehicle from the complainant as 19/03/2019.
The commission finds that the Opposite Party is liable to pay punitive damages and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reasonable compensation with 6% interest per annum from 19/03/2019 till repayment payable to the complainant with cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing the Opposite Party to pay of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) as punitive charges and compensation of a consumer for loss and injury suffered due to negligence of the service provider section 14 (1)(d). Opposite Party also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receiving the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- supply order
A2- form of resupply order
A3- Letter from shriram transport
Witness Examined
Pw1- Sanjay Krishnan. P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
