FIRST APPEAL NO. 701 OF 1999 Date of filing : 15/04/1999

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 185 OF 1998 Date of order : 03/11/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : SANGLI

Joshi’s Business Associates

Mahindra Finance, 2078, ‘E’,

Charushila Apartment, Rajarampuri,

9th Lane, Kolhapur. … Appellant/org. O.P.

V/s.

Prakash Sankar Arbune

R/o. Dudhondi, Tal. Tasgaon,

Dist. Sangli. … Respondent/org. complainant

Quorum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: None for the appellant.

Mr.Abhijeet kadam, Advocate for the respondent.

- : ORDER :-
Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

This appeal is filed by org. O.P. in consumer complaint No.185/1998 passed on 24/02/1999 by District Consumer Forum Sangli, whereby the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- together with interest @ 14% p.a. and compensation for mental agony of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

The case of the complainant in the Forum below was that he entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with O.P. on 26/04/1996 for purchase of Mahendra Jeep bearing No.MH-10-C-3194. As per agreement, complainant was to repay loan installment of Rs.10,864/- as hire purchase charges per month for 36 months to the O.P. According to the complainant, upto 20/04/1998 complainant paid Rs.1,87,522/- to the O.P. The complainant also paid Rs.44,000/- as security deposit to the O.P. It is alleged by the complainant that in the month of February 1998 O.P. illegally without notice repossessed the vehicle of the complainant. After repossession of said vehicle, complainant approached the O.P. and requested to accept due amount and prayed for possession of the vehicle. However, according to complainant O.P. refused to accept the amount and sold the said vehicle to third party. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum below and prayed for possession of the said vehicle and also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceeding.

O.P. filed written statement and contested the claim of the complainant. It pleaded that complainant had not paid the installments on time. He was habitual defaulter in payment of installments. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of O.P. O.P. acted as per terms and conditions of the agreement and finally, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

After considering affidavits and documents placed before it, the Learned District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.

Appellant is absent in spite of the fact that notice of today’s hearing was given to them by way of abundant precaution under certificate of posting. We heard Mr.Abhijeet Kadam, Advocate for the respondent.

The respondent had purchased disputed vehicle from the appellant on 29/03/1996 and accordingly Hire-Purchase agreement was executed between the parties. Respondent agreed to repay monthly installment of Rs.10,864/- for 36 months. As per the appellant, respondent had not paid the installments as per agreement and therefore, appellant repossessed vehicle of the respondent. It is revealed from the record that without giving notice of repossession, the O.P./appellant herein had taken into custody of the vehicle under false pretext and appellant had not justified it nor informed the respondent as regards seizure of vehicle. Therefore, act of the appellant is illegal and not justified under the law. Forum below had rightly concluded in its finding and allowed the complaint. The means adopted in the matter of repossession of vehicle are bad in law. Appellant repossessed the vehicle by fraudulent means. The loan agreement contemplated issuance of notice. Such termination notice was not served on owner of the vehicle before repossession of the vehicle and also before sale of the vehicle.

We are therefore finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant. The order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just, proper and sustainable in law. There is no reason to interfere in it. The appeal is devoid of any substance. Hence, we pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.