Order No. 14 dt. 16/11/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of self employment wanted to purchase a vehicle for doing business of transport and for that purpose the complainant made contact with o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 being the finance company provided the loan to the tune of rs.11,64,000/-. The complainant after getting such loan and payment of the amount to the manufacturer of the vehicle got the vehicle and registered with the Govt. of West Bengal for running the said vehicle. It was stated that on 19.5.13 the said vehicle met with an accident in the district of Purulia and the complainant informed the said fact to o.p. no.1 and requested the o.ps. to provide him with some time for repayment of the loan with interest. But o.ps. did not abide by the request of the complainant and suddenly on 17.11.13 o.ps. took possession of the said vehicle. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to return the vehicle as well as compensation of Rs.5 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
In spite of receipt of notices the o.ps. did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against them.
The complainant filed an affidavit on evidence whereby he stated that the complainant for the purpose of self employment wanted to purchase a vehicle for doing business of transport and for that purpose the complainant made contact with o.p. no.1 and o.p. no.2 being the finance company provided the loan to the tune of rs.11,64,000/-. The complainant after getting such loan and payment of the amount to the manufacturer of the vehicle got the vehicle and registered with the Govt. of West Bengal for running the said vehicle. It was stated that on 19.5.13 the said vehicle met with an accident in the district of Purulia and the complainant informed the said fact to o.p. no.1 and requested the o.ps. to provide him with some time for repayment of the loan with interest. But o.ps. did not abide by the request of the complainant and suddenly on 17.11.13 o.ps. took possession of the said vehicle. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to return the vehicle as well as other reliefs.
On perusal of the record we find that the complainant took loan from o.ps. and he failed to pay the EMI regularly and subsequently due to non payment of the EMIs o.ps. took possession of the vehicle. The complainant alleged that taking of possession of the vehicle by o.ps. was illegal. On perusal of the record we find that there was a contract between the parties at the time of obtaining the loan and in the loan agreement it was stated that the complainant should fulfill the conditions as stipulated in the said agreement. But the complainant has not filed the said loan agreement. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant could not file any document to show that the EMIs were paid regularly. There is catena case laws that financer has every right to take possession of the vehicle if the borrower does not pay the money. In this respect we can rely on a decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 95 (NC) wherein it was held that non payment of amount to financer – taking possession of the vehicle on ground of non payment of installment was legal right of financer as financer was taken to be the real owner of the vehicle. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus the case is disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.269/2015 is dismissed ex parte without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
