Complainant Shikha Nayyar has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to receive the outstanding instalments or to make one time settlement with the opposite parties by excluding the heavy interest levied thereupon and also to withdraw their illegal threat of snatching the vehicle in question from her lawful custody. Opposite parties be further directed to make payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to her, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that she had purchased  a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.PB-6-AB-6018 and got insured the same in the month of October 2014. Thereafter the opposite parties have financed the said vehicle for the sum of Rs.4,30,000/- and Hypothecation was made on the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question. The R.C. was prepared on 10.2.2015. At the time of financing the said vehicle by the opposite parties, it was settled between her and opposite parties that the said financed amount would be got deposited by her in 48 monthly installments of Rs.13,500/- each. He has been regularly paying the installments of the financed amount with the opposite parties without any default but after the month of August 2017, she could not deposit  2 installments of September and October 2017 due to financial crises and also due to some untoward happenings occurred in her family and thereafter, in the month of November 2017, she has approached to the opposite party no.1 to receive the prior 2 installments of September and October alongwith current installment of month of November 2017 and to regularized her loan case. But the opposite parties were having malafide intention and they allured that they will sent her request before the Head Office i.e. opposite party no.2. She has number of times requested the opposite party no.1 to receive the installments of further concurrent months, but they did not receive the same.  On the other hand, she has always been ready and still ready and willing to make the payment of outstanding installments of the loan and if the opposite parties would leave the interest and amicably settle the matter, then she is also ready to make the payment in one time settlement. She has further pleaded that the opposite parties have passed out 4/5 months in this process but strange enough, in the last week of February 2018, some gunda elements of the opposite parties have tried to forcibly snatch the vehicle in question from the lawful custody of her husband. Again on 2.3.2018, the said gunda elements have tried to forcibly snatch the vehicle in question but with the intervention of respectable of the locality, this illegal act of the opposite parties was thwarted.  Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, she has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment, so there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. 

3.          Opposite parties did not opt to put in appearance despite service of notice as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.4.2018.

4.      Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and photocopy of R.C. Ex.C2, Copy of Joint Account of Gaurav Trehan and Davinder Kumar Ex.C-3, Copy of Account statement of complainant Ex.C-4 and copy of statement of account of loan of complainant Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.  

5.       We have carefully gone through the case file and scanned the documents minutely. As per version of complainant, she purchased a Swift Desire Car bearing Registration No.PB-06-AB-6018 and got it insured in the same month of October 2014. Thereafter the opposite parties financed the said car for Rs.4,30,000/- and hypothecation was made on the R.C. of the vehicle in question and it was agreed to repay the financed amount in 48 monthly installments of Rs.13,500/- each. Unfortunately, complainant could not pay the installments of two months i.e. September and October due to some financial crises and some untoward happenings in the family and approached in November 2017 to take the missed installments as well as the subsequent due installments and to regularize the loan case of complainant but opposite parties have lingered on the matter. The complainant is even ready to pay the loan in one time settlement but by excluding the heavy interest but opposite parties are not ready to receive the same and have sent some unsocial elements to forcibly snatch the vehicle but the same was prevented by the intervention of some respectable of the locality and now complainant has prayed for a direction  be given to opposite parties to receive the outstanding installments and not to snatch the vehicle illegally and forcibly from complainant alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

6.       The complainant has produced on the file affidavit Ex.C-1 and R.C. Ex.C-2 to prove that owner of the car in question is the complainant. Ex.C-3 and C-4 are the account statements to prove that installments were paid from the account of complainant and her husband respectively. Admittedly complainant is defaulter of loan installments. The complainant has not produced any document stating terms and conditions of the loan account as to in how many installments the loan was to be repaid or on the default of how many installments, the vehicle would be seized? These are the unanswered questions as the opposite parties are exparte in the present complaint and they have not rebutted any allegation leveled by complainant but as per settled law, no one can be allowed to take benefit of its own wrongs. As the complainant himself has failed to pay the loan installments in time, he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs but at the same time the vehicle in dispute should also be possessed only with due procedure of law. Hon’ble National Commission has also observed in revision petition No.3453 of 2016 M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Versus Rejendra Das given below” (Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 13-Re-pssession of vehicle-Default in payment of the installments-held-up could not have taken a coercive action for seizure of the vehicle, even if the complainant had defaulted in payment of the outstanding installment. The possession of the vehicle should have been taken through the due process of law. That having not been done, the petitioner obviously was deficient in rendering service to the  respondent – A flat compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant would be justifiable – Revision Petition disposed of (Para 6)”

7.       From above all discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed with a direction to complainant to repay back the loan installments as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and further opposite parties are directed  not to seize the vehicle in question except in due course of law.

8.           Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.

 ANNOUNCED:                   (Shri Raj Singh)                   (Rajita Sareen)

April 09, 2019.                           Member                       Presiding Member

 MK