: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT



This appeal was filed against the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Paschim Medinipur in Complaint Case No.90 of 2007 whereby the complaint was dismissed on contest.

Facts stated in the complaint in brief are that the complainant purchased a vehicle taking loan from the OP and he was paying installments in respect of the said loan regularly. For few months the vehicle suffered a break down and could not be plied and, therefore, some installments remained unpaid. The said break down was duly informed to the dealer. The OP by a letter of insult and threat to the complainant asked for payment of Rs.83,582/- as arrears and being aggrieved thereby and alleging defamation the complaint was filed asking for appropriate relief including an order not to take possession of the vehicle.

Heard Mr. Aloke Mukhopadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Dipaloke Majumder, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.

The Ld. Advocate for the appellant contended that the appellant was not at all at fault and the installments fell in arrear only under circumstances beyond control of the appellant when the vehicle suffered a break down. In such circumstance the issuance of the letter asking for deposit of the arrear with insult and threat, could not have been issued nor the vehicle can be taken possession of for arrear installments.

The Ld. Advocate for the Respondent vehemently opposed the said contention.

Considering the respective contentions and the materials on record we are of the opinion that the complaint as was filed, cannot be allowed as under the agreement the OP was entitled to recover the arrear installments and, therefore, issuance of a letter asking for payment of arrear installments, did not amount to any deficiency in service. With regard to the recovery and possession of the vehicle unless arrears are cleared, the hypothecation agreement was relied on by the respondent to show that the agreement between the parties permitted taking possession of the vehicle in case installments fell due. Law as has been decided by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd.-Vs-Amritajit Mitra in FMAT No.145 of 2009 also supports the contention of the respondent when it was held that without paying the arrears and undertaking to pay current dues, taking over of possession of the vehicle by the financier without violating any law otherwise, does not entitle the loanee to get injunction.

In view of the aforesaid law and in the facts and circumstances in the present case we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and the same is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.







(S. Majumder) (A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT