Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.
1) Petitioner Mannapuram Finance Limited has preferred the present revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 06/09/2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/478/2020 on the application filed by the respondent/complainant on 04/08/2021 seeking directions to O.P. to foreclose the amount and for one time settlement as well as for direction to hand over the vehicle. (Petitioner and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2) Short facts leading to the filing of the revision petition may be narrated as under.
3) Complainant Harjindar Singh Randhawa is resident of Wardha Road Nagpur whereas the O.P. Mannapuram Finance Limited is a non banking financial institution registered under Companies Act. Complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- for purchasing one vehicle bearing No.MH/40/Y/9357, model No.AL4923 and had mortgaged the said vehicle with the O.P. Complainant has alleged that he was regularly paying the monthly installments of Rs.39,100/- as fixed by the O.P. Complainant has alleged that during the periods from May 2019 to October 2020 complainant was unable to pay monthly installments in a regular manner due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Complainant has alleged that in view of complete lock down due to Covid-19 Pandemic directions were given by the Prime Minister as well as Reserve Bank of India to the bank and financial institutions not to forcibly secure the monthly installments. Complainant duly conveyed this direction and message to the O.P./ Mannapuram Finance Limited, but the O.P. paid no heed to the same and forced the complainant to pay the monthly installments during the period of lock down. Complainant has alleged that on 20/10/2020 the O.P. has seized the vehicle in a forcible manner inspite of the fact that the complainant had already paid the huge amounts to the O.P. through the recovery officer. Complainant then lodged the Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the O.P. During the pendancy of the present complaint, the respondent/complainant also filed an application for urgent hearing and also for direction to the O.P. to release the vehicle bearing No.MH/40/Y/9357. Accordingly after hearing both parties the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur accepted the request of the complainant Harjindar Singh and directed the O.P. Mannapuram Finance Limited to immediately hand over the vehicle to the complainant by passing order on 06/09/2021. Against this order dated 06/09/2021 passed by the District Consumer Commission Nagpur present petitioner Mannapuram Finance Limited has come up in revision.
4) After filing of the revision petition notice came to be issued to the respondent/ complainant and respondent has also appeared through advocate.
5) We have heard Ms.Nitnaware, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Shri A.T.Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant. We have also gone through the various documents placed on record as well as notes of argument. There is no serious dispute that the present complainant Shri Harjindar Singh had secured loan of Rs.11,50,000/- from Mannapuram Finance Limited for purchasing the vehicle and the complainant was to pay monthly installments of Rs.39,100/-. Petitioner has taken a specific plea that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has passed the impugned order dated 06/09/2021 and directed the petitioner to hand over the vehicle without taking into consideration the various aspects including the fact the respondent/complainant was not at all regular and had not paid huge amount by way of installments. Petitioner has taken a plea that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not taken into consideration the fact that the complainant had committed breach of his own undertaking given on 03/12/2020 that the petitioner company will have a right to take back the possession in case the remaining installments are not duly paid by the complainant. Petitioner has also submitted that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur had not taken into consideration the statement of loan account and passed an order directing the petitioner to hand over the vehicle.
6) We have heard Mr.A.T.Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant. Learned advocate for respondent has categorically denied that the complainant was not regularly paying the monthly installments or that he had committed any breach of undertaking. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the vehicle’s documents on record as well as one copy of loan statement so as to buttress the point that the complainant was not at all regular in payment of monthly installments of Rs.39,100/-. On the other hand Shri Sawal, learned advocate for respondent/complainant has pointed out that initially the complainant was quite regular in payment of monthly installments but after some time complainant could not deposit the installments due to complete lock down and financial stress upon the complainant and other businessmen. Both the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent have drawn our attention to the statement of loan account and the same shows that the complainant had initially deposits the installments in a regular manner till the period of lock down due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Learned advocate for the petitioner has argued before us that the possession of the vehicle was taken by the company arbitrarily solely because the complainant/respondent had committed breach of undertaking and also had failed to deposit the balance amount. Petitioner has taken plea that as per the application dated 04/08/2021 in case the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.8,64,695.36 then company was ready to release the vehicle, but the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur without taking any undertaking from the complainant regarding repayment of loan, had directed the petitioner to handover the vehicle. Shri A.T.Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant has strongly rebutted this contention regarding non payment of loan and has contended that the complainant had already paid a huge sum of Rs.4,02,500/- to one Shankar Gaidhane who was the recovery officer of Mannapuram Finance Ltd. in between 10/02/2021 to 02/07/2021, but the petitioner Mannapuram Finance Ltd. has not taken this amount into consideration. In this regard Shri Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant has drawn our attention specifically to copies of receipts which are placed on record regarding payment made to one Shankar Gaidhane who was the recovery officer of petitioner Company. Bare perusal of these receipts and statements shows that payments were made to Shankar Gaidhane who was admittedly an employee of petitioner Mannapuram Finance Ltd. Shri Sawal, learned advocate for the respondent/complainant has submitted that though the respondent had paid huge amount of Rs.4,02,500/- between 10/02/2021 to 02/07/2021 the said Shankar Gaidhane had deposited only cash of Rs.1,73,100/- for which the complainant can not be held liable or responsible. Shri Sawal, learned advocate for respondent/complainant has also submitted that the complainant had also filed police complaint before Jaripatka Police Station on 18/08/2021 against the Shankar Gaidhane and copy of the same is also filed on record. This document also supports the view that the present complainant had handed over the amount to Shankar Gaidhane who was an employee of petitioner Mannapuram /Finance Ltd. but the O.P. did not consider this amount.
7) We find that the complainant Harjindar Singh Randhawa had stated this fact in the application before the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur and on the basis of the same the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has passed an order directing the petitioner to hand over the custody of the vehicle No.MH-40-9357 to respondent as per order dated 06/09/2021 which is under challenge. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the direction was given by the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur regarding handing over the vehicle though no such prayer was made in the application dt.04/08/2021, but we find from the record that on 04/08/2021 complainant had also made an application for permission to deposit the amount by way of one time settlement and thereafter on 23/08/2021 complainant filed another application for urgent hearing and also for releasing the vehicle and consequently the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur passed the impugned order dated 06/09/2021. If we go through this impugned order dated 06/09/2021 the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has duly considered the payments made by the complainant of Rs.4,02,500/- to Shankar Gaidhane and has also observed that Shankar Gaidhane was acting as an agent of Mannapuram Finance Ltd. and so O.P./Mannapuram Finance Ltd cannot shirk his liability of handing over the vehicle to the complainant. Learned advocate for the petitioner has tried to submit before us that the amount alleged paid to Shankar Gaidhane was not received by the company, but we feel that this aspect can not come in the way or become a hindrance in handing over the custody of the vehicle to the complainant once payment is made by the complainant and the same is supported with documents on record. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has committed breach of undertaking and amount of Rs.8,64,655.36 is still out standing against the O.P. During the course of argument learned advocate for the petitioner has also filed copy of loan statement on record. However, we are of the view that once the complainant has paid the amount towards the loan of the vehicle the petitioner company had no right to repossess the vehicle and to retain the same. We are further of the opinion that issue of repayment of entire loan amount can be resolved only during adjudication of the complaint on merits and not at this stage. We also find that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has discussed these aspects and also given reasons for the same and we do not find any reasons to interfere with the said findings. Even otherwise the learned advocate for respondent Shri A.T.Sawal has also made statement that the complainant had already paid huge amount and is also ready to pay the balance amount if any in future. In view of this submission made, we are unable to accept the contentions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the learned District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not applied its mind or that there is any error in the order passed on 06/09/2021 so as to warrant any interference. In the light of the aforesaid discussions we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
- Revision petition is hereby dismissed.
- No order as to cost in this petition.
- Copy of this order be supplied to both parties free of cost.
