JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, (ORAL)

1.      No one has been appearing for the respondent / complainant in this matter though the notice was served upon him for 19.4.2018. No one appeared for him even thereafter though the matter was adjourned on several dates of hearing.

On the last date of hearing, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit of the person to whom the tractor in question was allegedly surrendered, giving all the particulars of the alleged surrender including its date, time and place. The learned counsel for the petitioner company states that since the person to whom the tractor was surrendered has left the job of the company, they are  not in position to file his affidavit. I have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      The complainant/respondent purchased a Mahindra 575 tractor which he got financed from the petitioner to the extent of Rs.3,85,000/-. The said loan amount was payable in installments. Since there was some default in payment of the installments, the tractor, according to the complainant was forcibly seized from his house on 17.9.2010. The tractor having been sold, instead of being returned to the complainant, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which interalia stated in its reply that the complainant himself had surrendered the tractor on account of his inability to service the loan taken by him. The tractor was resold on 27.10.2010.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.      The only issue involved in this petition is as to whether the complainant had of his own surrendered the tractor to the petitioner or it was forcibly repossessed by the petitioner on account of default in making payment of the installments.

5.      The learned counsel for the petitioner  has drawn my attention to the written surrender letter dated 17.9.2010 available on page 86 of the paper-book, in support of his contention that the complainant himself had surrendered the tractor to the petitioner. After the alleged surrender of the tractor on 17.9.2010, the petitioner sent a notice to the complainant on very next day, i.e., 18.9.2010 claiming therein that he had surrendered the vehicle to the company and asking  him to discharged his liability under the loan agreement. The petitioner has also placed on record the postal receipt whereby the said notice was sent to the complainant on 18.9.2010 itself.

6.      The complainant did not respond to the legal notice of the petitioner soon after it was sent and served upon him on 28.9.2010. The AD Card available on page 89 of the paper-book would show that the said notice was received by the complainant on 28.9.2010. The said legal notice was also endorsed  to the person who had stood as a guarantor for the complainant and was served upon him on 23.9.2010. The notice was responded by the complainant only on 18.11.2010 wherein he claimed that the tractor had been forcibly seized and his signatures had also been taken forcibly on the surrender documents.

7.      The petitioner responded to the notice of the complainant dated 18.11.2010 on  27.12.2010 denying the allegations made by him.

8.      There is no explanation from the complainant / respondent as to why he did not lodge any report with the concerned police station when the tractor was allegedly repossessed / seized by use of force on 17.9.2010 and he was forced to sign the surrender letter. There is no explanation from him as to why he did not send any notice / letter to the petitioner immediately after 17.9.2010 alleging therein that the tractor had been forcibly repossessed. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why  he did not send a prompt response to the notice of the petitioner dated 18.9.2010 alleging surrender of the tractor by him. The aforesaid conduct of the complainant coupled with the surrender letter available on page 86 of the paper-book clearly shows that he had himself surrendered the vehicle on account of his inability to service the loan and that the tractor was  not forcibly repossessed as is claimed by him. The Fora below, therefore, were not justified in awarding compensation against the petitioner.

9.      The impugned orders are, therefore, set aside the complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.