Order No. 36 dt. 03/08/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a vehicle valued at Rs.13,45,000/- through o.p. and he had already paid Rs.11,95,588/-. On the basis of the scrutiny of the loan agreement it appears that o.p. financed a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- out of the value of the vehicle of Rs.13,45,000/-. The o.p. out of the said loan amount already paid an amount of Rs.11,95,588/-. In spite of payment of the said amount o.p. took possession of the vehicle for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for furnishing of account and also to pay compensation and litigation.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant is not a consumer as per the provision laid down in the C.P. Act. The o.p. has not provided any service to the complainant, therefore this case does not lie. It was further stated that o.p. and the complainant entered into a loan agreement cum hypothecation cum guaranee whereby o.p. agreed to provide loan for the purpose of purchase of the said vehicle. It was decided that the amount is to be paid in 47 EMIs, but the complainant failed to pay the amount for which o.p. took possession of the vehicle of the complainant. Since the complainant failed to pay the amount, therefore being financer o.p. has every right to take possession of the vehicle. As such, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant purchased the vehicle with the finance provided by o.p.?
- Whether the complainant paid the EMI regularly?
- Whether taking possession of the vehicle by o.p. created any deficiency in service?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant for purchasing the vehicle took loan from o.p. and o.p. at the time of entering into loan agreement asked the complainant to pay the EMIs. The complainant after payment of the regular monthly installments found that the amount provided by o.p. was much higher than that of the amount provided loan by o.p. In view of the said fact ld. lawyer emphasized that taking possession of the vehicle by o.p. was illegal and thereby the complainant by filing this case prayed for an injunction. On the basis of the said fact ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and prayed for relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that from the complaint itself it appears that o.p. provided finance to the complainant for purchasing the vehicle and a loan agreement was entered into between the parties and the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly for which o.p. had to take possession of the said vehicle. Subsequently the complainant filed a petition by virtue of the order of the court the complainant took possession of the vehicle against the said order o.p. preferred an revisional application and by virtue of the order of the Hon’ble State Commission o.p. repossessed the vehicle. No illegality was committed by o.p. and as such, the case is to be dismissed.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was the owner of the vehicle and for purchasing the same he took loan from o.p. It is undisputed fact that at the time of obtaining loan by the complainant from o.p. they entered into an agreement of loan cum hypothecation cum guaranty whereby the complainant agreed to pay 47 EMIs regularly. It appears from the record that the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly for which o.p. took possession of the said vehicle. In this respect we can rely on a decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 95 (NC) wherein it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly and taking possession of the vehicle on ground of non payment of installment was legal right of financer as financer was taken to be real owner of the vehicle. There is no evidence that action of o.p. in taking possession of the vehicle was not in accordance with law, keeping in view of the said fact the complainant was admittedly defaulter of o.p. Accordingly it was held by Hon’ble National Commission that taking possession of the vehicle on ground of non payment of installment is legal right of financer. Here in this case, since the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly, therefore the vehicle was taken by o.p. and as such, we hold that no illegality was committed by o.p. for which the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.391/2012 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
