| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.63 of 01-03-2018 Decided on 27-05-2022 Charanjit Singh aged about 37 years, son of Joginder Singh resident of Khaneki Patti, Village Bajakhana, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot. .......Complainant Versus Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, office at 2nd Floor, SCO 128-1289, Rose Garden Complex, G. T. Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Registered office 3rd Floor, Mookambika Complex, No.-4, Lady Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai, through its Regional Manager/authorized signatory.
.......Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present:- For the Complainant: Sh Mohit Attri, Advocate. For Opposite parties: Sh Vikas Singla, Advocate. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President:-
Complainant Charanjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as ‘Act’) before this Forum(Now Commission) against Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited (here-in-after referred as Opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that for the purpose of earning his livelihood, complainant purchased on Truck TATA LPT 1109 bearing registration no. PB-03AF-9360 with the financial assistance of opposite parties and opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs.6,35,000/-vide agreement dated 10.03.2016. Repayment of loan was to be done through 60 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.17,865/-each and thus, complainant was to clear total amount of Rs.10,71,900/-by 20.02.2021. He was paying all the EMIs regularly and upto July, 2017 he paid Rs.3,97,010/-against said loan, but thereafter, he could not pay the instalments due to accident of his vehicle as entire documents were attached with the criminal case. It is alleged that in December, 2017 opposite parties illegally seized his vehicle due to non payment of instalments though they have no right to seize the same. Complainant is ready to deposit the remaining balance instalments from August, 2017 to December, 2017. It is further alleged that complainant made many requests to opposite parties to return his vehicle and get deposited the balance EMIs against said loan, but they did not pay any heed to listen to his requests which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of opposite parties and it has caused great loss to him. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions opposite parties to return his vehicle after getting deposited the remaining instalments with effect from August, 2017 to December, 2017 and he is ready to deposit the remaining EMIs regularly with opposite parties. He has also prayed for directions to opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. On receipt of notice, Opposite parties appeared in Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking legal objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts. Further averred that present complaint involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence that is no possible in the summary procedure of consumer court and moreover, this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present matter. Complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is filed only to injure the reputation of answering opposite parties. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made. However, on merits also, Opposite parties have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that answering opposite parties never seized the vehicle of complainant, rather complainant himself surrendered the same with them and it is parked with them. As per Opposite parties, complainant could not pay the instalments and became defaulter. Opposite parties have neither seized nor sold the vehicle in question, it has been surrendered by complainant himself and they are entitled to recover the parking charges from complainant. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs. Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex.C-2 to C-16 and then, closed the evidence. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Nishant Mehta as Ex OP-1/2, and documents Ex OP-1/1 to Ex OP-1/3 and 4 then, closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite parties. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents placed on the file. Learned Counsels for parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. Learned counsels for complainant submitted that complainant purchased one Truck by availing loan of Rs.6,35,000/-vide agreement dated 10.03.2016 from Opposite parties. As per loan agreement, repayment of loan was to be done through 60 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.17,865/-each and thus, complainant was to pay total amount of Rss.10,71,900/-by 20.02.2021. Due to an accident, complainant could not pay the instalments from August 2017 to December, 2017 and in December, 2017 Opposite parties illegally seized his vehicle due to non payment of instalments, which amounts to deficiency in service. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests of complainant for getting deposited the remaining balance instalments from August, 2017 to December, 2017, Opposite parties have not released his vehicle due to which he has been suffering huge loss as said truck is the only source of income for the complainant and his family and prayed for releifs claimed. On the contrary counsel for the opposite parties have stressed mainly on the point that complainant could not pay the instalments and became defaulter. Opposite parties have never seized or sold the vehicle in question, rather complainant has himself surrendered the said vehicle with them. Opposite parties have every right to deal with vehicle as per terms and conditions agreement of loan cum hypothication and prayed of dismissal of complaint. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of both the counsel. It is admitted fact that complainant purchased the truck in question with the financial assistance of Opposite parties. Persual of documents produced by complainant reveals complainant used to deposit instalments. Futher perusal of documents (Ex.C-13, Ex.C-14 & Ex.C-16) reveals that vehicle of complainant met with an accident in September, 2017. It is admitted that complainant was regular in payment of instalments till August, 2017. Main plea of the opposite parties is that complainant himself surrendered the said vehicle with them is impalpable. Stand taken by the opposite parties that complainant himself surrendered his truck with them, is a lame excuse and has no legs to stand upon as no one will give up or leave his source of income without any reason. Moreover, Opposite parties could not bring on file any document showing that any notice was ever served upon complainant to make payment of instalments or in case of failure of make payment his vehicle will be seized/re-possessed. So no reason is made out for complainant to himself his surrender his vehicle with the opposite parties as complainant was earning his bread and butter through his vehicle. Moreover, Opposite parties have also not denied that vehicle in question is not with them. It is observed that dispute between the parties is that complainant could not make payment of instalments regularly after July, 2017. But this does not give any reason to opposite parties to reposses the vehicle of complainant without giving him any notice. So this commission is of the view that their is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Further inventory reports regarding repossesion of vehicle (Ex.C-9 & OP 1/4) are not in consonance with each other, which also proves that these documents are self serving documents prepared by opposite parties. Opposite parties have denied that they have seized his vehicle but have admitted that vehicle in question is still with them. As the opposite parties kept the vehicle in question in their possession since December 2017, so obviously complainant could not ply it, earn his livelihood and deposit instalments so it would meet the ends of justice and equity, if opposite parties are directed not to claim interest on due instalments from date of re-possession of vehicle to date of handing over possession of vehicle to complainant. In view of what has been discussed above, complainant has fully succeeded in proving his case, so complaint in hand is hereby partly allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to return the vehicle of complainant to him on deposit instalments due upto December, 2017. Payment of remaining instalments (excluding interest from the date of re-possession of vehicle to handing over vehicle to complainant) be made by complainant regularly every month following the month of possession of vehicle by him. The Compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The complainant could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced:- 27-05-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
