Dated : 28 Feb 2023

 FACTS

            The case of the Complainant in short is that:-

 She had purchased a two wheeler motorcycle, model Burgman Street Standard BSIV colour Black, Engine AF21 – 2154498, Chassis No.MBBEA11AHK 8213943, Key No.1037, Service Book No.19301413 from Vaibhar Automobiles on 12.06.2020 and paid Rs.47,983/- (Rs.3961/- p.m.) towards E.M.I till March, 2021, but she did not get the registration No of the said vehicle.

            Due to pandemic situation, Complainant became defaulter regarding the payment of E.M.I for few months and that the month of March, 2021, the men and agent of the OPs illegally took away her motorcycle without due process of law.

            Thereafter, the Complainant met the OPs to their office, but they did nothing.

So, Complainant filed this instant case before this Commission praying for a direction upon the OPs to return the motorcycle to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.

            OPs did not contest this case by filing written version, and finally the case proceeded ex parte against OP No.1 and OP No.2 vide order dated 16.02.2021 & 19.09.2022 respectively.

            But later OP No.1 appeared by filing a put up petition on 24.03.2022 along with written version and prayed for recalling the ex parte order which is already on record. Thereafter, OP No.1 did not appear for hearing and accordingly written version filed by OP No.1 was not    accepted.

            Complainant filed certain documents namely, (i) Tax Invoice, (ii) Insurance Policy, (iii) Money Receipt of Vaibhar automobiles, (iv) A letter of Vaibhar automobiles, (v) Road challan on behalf of the Complainant, (vi) A bank cheque in support of her case, and also adduced evidence on affidavit in support of her contention.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

            Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief (s) as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

            Though the petition of complaint is found to have not been drafted in a precise way, however the accompanied by the documents filed on behalf of the Complainant reveal that the Complainant got the said two-wheeler on exchange of an old scooty from OP No. 1. The insurance paper issued by BHARTXA General Insurance dated 14/10/2019 reveals the Insurance Declared Value of the said 2-wheeler is Rs.68,741/-. It is further found in the said insurance paper, the name of the Complainant has been shown as the insured. Complainant claims that she paid Rs.47,983/- towards the price of the said two-wheeler and the monthly EMI was of Rs.3,961/-.

            The papers further revealed that the Proprietor of OP No. 1 undertook to get the said vehicle registered in the name of the Complainant. He also assured that if he failed to get registration in the name of the Complainant, he would refund the amount. It further reveals that one cheque amounting to Rs.30,000/- was issued by  OP No. 1 in the name of the Complainant but the said cheque is found to have been bounced because the concerned account of  OP No. 1 was dormant. We also find a tax invoice for Rs.1312/- dated 12/05/2020 regarding workshop sale of some spare parts.

            So, on the basis of the materials of record it is clear the Complainant already paid substantial amount of the price of the vehicle to the OP No. 1 through L & T Financial Services, who has not been made a party in this case, despite that fact OP No. 1 forcefully taken possession from the Complainant in this regard.

We may recall the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court the Judgment in ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Prakash Kar & Ors. (2007) where a truck was forcibly taken in possession by the bank for defaulter and the Hon’ble Apex Court disposed that case with a direction upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the bank shall forthwith release the truck which was seized from writ petitioner’s possession and both the petitioner and bank officials should sit for reconciliation and the petitioner will pay the balance in six equal monthly instalment.

It was held “Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner. The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged. The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics.”

            Similarly, in CITICORP. MATUTI FINANCE LTD. Vs. S. VIJAYALAXMI (2011) (SC) and the said case was also disposed of by three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court where they were pleased to hold “Till such time as the ownership is not transferred to the purchaser, the hirer normally continues to be the owner of the goods, but that does not entitle him on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by the Reserve Bank of India as well as the Appellant Bank itself, in fact, support and make a virtue of such conduct.”

We have also noticed from the road challan dated 01/10/2019 issued by the OP No. 1, that the scooty/bike in question was handed over to complainant on the said date without any registration. It is settled law that no vehicle can be driven on road without registration. That means complainant after having paid so much money could not reap the benefit of new bike she had dreamt of. So, after travelling through the complaint petition and the materials available with the record and the above-said Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion to give some relief(s) to the Complainant in the following manner that she should get the vehicle returned with a conditions, he should repay the balance amount within a certain period of time that 3 equal monthly instalments.

            OPs are also to get the registration of the vehicle in the name of the Complainant in the meantime if not already registered.

In the end, Complainant had succeeded in proving her case.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.

OPs are directed to release the two-wheeler vehicle i.e. Suzuki Burgman Street to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order along with payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to be paid to the Complainant.

Parties are to sit together after release of the vehicle for reconciliation of the balance payment, if any, which is to be paid in 3 equal instalments on monthly basis from the date of releasing the vehicle.

If the instant order is not complied with by the OPs as directed, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Dictated and corrected by me