Haryana

Ambala

CC/78/2020

Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	78 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	13.03.2020
Date of decision	:	07.06.2023

 

Harjit Singh aged about 34 years, S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh, R/o Barachpur Road, Ambedkar Nagar, Ladwa, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. M.No. 9813752143

          ……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Cheenai-600032 through its Managing Director /Chairman through its branch at Ambala
2. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd., Gurudawara Road, Baldev Nagar, Ambala through its Manager.

                                                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.                                                                                Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       None for the complainant.

                     Shri Rajiv Sachdeva, Advocate, counsel for the OPs

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                 Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To hand over the vehicle to the complainant and also give the statements of accounts and not to alienate/sale the vehicle to any stranger;
2. To pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony and deficiency in service, Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.20,000/- as damages alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Ashoka Leyland bearing registration No. HR65-A-6259, Engine No. MB1A3HCD2JRXZ6121, from Ashoka Motors for his livelihood and the same was financed by the OPs, repayable in 52 installments @Rs.45,286/- per month vide loan agreement No.PJCGAB00780 dated 21.11.2018. The complainant regularly paid the installments of the said loan to the OP No.2 and sometimes the OPs issued the receipt to the complainant and sometimes no receipt was issued by them.  On 14.02.2020 the complainant was coming from Derabassi to Ladwa on his above-said vehicle and when he reached near Ambala, some persons of the OPs came in a car and took his vehicle, without putting any question i.e. they forcibly snatched the vehicle from the complainant. The OPs did not issue any notice regarding the default of payment and the seizing of the vehicle, but they seized the vehicle without following the rules of law. The complainant went to the office of the OPs to hand over the above said vehicle which was seized by them illegally and forcibly and told that he is always ready to pay the installments of the loan but to no avail and they are trying to alienate/sale the vehicle to the some other person. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is based on frivolous allegations and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts; the  present complaint is not maintainable as Truck "Ashok Leyland 1612H" is a commercial Vehicle etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant approached and persuaded the OPs for a commercial vehicle loan and assured to return the same with calculated interest as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  As such, the OPs financed the vehicle to the tune of Rs.18,28,969/- on 21-11-2018 for which the complainant entered into agreement no. "PJCGAB000780" dated 21-11-2018 with the OPs and promised to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 45464/- in 53 months.  However, the complainant started making default in making payments of monthly instalments and the OPs approached him to settle the overdue amount of loan account but the complainant did not bother. The OPs issued overdue notice. The complainant himself surrendered the above said vehicle on 16-01-2020 and also requested to dispose it in the best possible manner and adjust the sale proceeds of the vehicle to the loan account. He further requested the OPs  that in case of any surplus on sale; the same may be paid to him. Still, when the complainant did not bother to settle the loan account, the OPs issued a pre- sale notice dated 09-03-2020 to the complainant but the result was same and the OPs sold the vehicle and adjusted the sale amount in loan account. After the sale of the vehicle, the OPs again issued after sale notice vide postal receipt dated 14-10-2020 to the complainant but instead of making balance payment, the complainant has filed this complaint. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Akashdeep Legal Executive/Authorized Official on behalf of M/s Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, having its Registered office at No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai and branch office at all over India and has its Branch office at SCO No.39, Second Floor, Phase-5, S.A.S Nagar, (Mohali) and having one of the Branch Office is at 2075-76, Ist Floor, Shingari Complex, Above SBI Baldev Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ambala City as Annexure OP-A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-9 and  closed evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.           Since none put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, on the date of argument, as such, we have heard the learned counsel for OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that it was on account of surrender made by the complainant qua the vehicle in question because of his inability to pay the loan amount, as a result of which, after adopting due procedure of law, the vehicle in question was sold and the remaining payable amount was recovered by the OPs, as such, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  
7.           It may be stated here that since the complainant in his complaint has leveled  allegations against the OPs to the effect that the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by them despite the fact that he was ready to make remaining payment against the loan in question, as such, the following questions fall for consideration before this Commission to come a definite conclusion:-
   1. Whether the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by the OPs?
   2. Whether the complainant was willing to pay the remaining loan amount to the OPs?
   3. Whether any notice followed by reminders were sent to the complainant before selling the vehicle in question?

 

8.           First coming to the question, as to whether, the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by the OPs or not. It may be stated here that the OPs have placed on record letter dated 16.01.2020, Annexure OP-6, wherefrom it is clearly evident that it was the complainant who had surrendered the vehicle in question stated that he is in receipt of the demand notice dated 11.01.2020 to make payment of arrears of instalments, yet, he is unable to run the vehicle due to personal problems and hence not able to pay the instalments and as such he surrenders the vehicle peacefully to the OPs with a request to dispose of the same in the best possible manner and adjust the sale proceeds to his loan account. The complainant has not denied this letter, Annexure OP-6. Thus, from the said letter itself, it is clear that the vehicle in question was not repossessed by the OPs, but on the other hand, it was surrendered by the complainant himself, on account of the reasons stated above.
9.           Now coming to the second question, as to whether the complainant was willing to pay the remaining loan amount to the OPs, it may be stated here that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that he was ever ready to make the remaining payment of installments to the OPs, whereas, on the other hand, he showed his inability to make payment of arrears of instalments in the letter dated 16.01.2020, Annexure OP-6. It is therefore, held that the complainant was not willing to pay the remaining loan amount to the OPs.
10.           The last question which falls for consideration is,  as to whether any notice followed by reminders were sent to the complainant before selling the vehicle in question or not? It may be stated here that the OPs have placed on record following letters/notices,  having been sent to the complainant through registered post, before selling the vehicle in question, giving him ample opportunities to save his vehicle by making payment of the installments but he failed to do so:-
    1. Letter dated 04.01.2020, through registered post dated 10.01.2020, Annexure OP-3
    2. Letter dated 22.05.2019, through registered post dated 23.05.2019, Annexure OP-4
    3. Pre-resale notice dated 09.03.2020 through registered post dated 12.03.2020, Annexure OP-7
    4. Notice dated 01.10.2020 through registered post dated 14.10.2020, Annexure OP-8;

Under these circumstances, it can easily be said that the OPs adopted due procedure before selling the vehicle in question to recover their balance amount, after giving ample opportunities to the complainant, in the matter, vide the letters/notices referred to above, but it was the complainant who miserably failed to take any steps in the matter and ultimately surrendered the vehicle in question to the OPs, as stated above. As such, by selling the vehicle thereafter by the OPs, they cannot be said to be deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice.

11.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
12.           Resultantly, the application moved by the complainant seeking directions to the OPs not to sell the vehicle in question to a third party stands dismissed having been rendered infructuous. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 Announced:- 07.06.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President