Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal originates out of the Order dated 22-07-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Paschim Medinipur in C.C. No. 22/2010 whereof the complaint has been allowed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, OP thereof has preferred this Appeal.

In a nutshell, case of the Complainant is that, he purchased a truck with the financial assistance rendered by the OP.  After registration of the vehicle, he started plying the vehicle and also repaid the loan in instalments.  However, the OP most arbitrarily and illegally repossessed the vehicle. Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicles Department asked him to pay tax with penalty.  Although the Complainant explained his predicament to the OP, the latter remained unmoved.  Hence, the complaint.

OP contested the case by filing WV stating inter alia that the Complainant is a chronic/ habitual defaulter which resulted in accumulation of huge outstanding.  So, after issuing due notice, the OP repossessed the vehicle.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of both sides and perused the material on record.

Undisputedly, the Respondent did not adhere to the payment schedule scrupulously resulting which, a substantial amount became overdue. It is also not in dispute that the OP repossessed the vehicle in question on account of non-clearance of EMIs. 

Against this backdrop, the issue at stake was (1) whether the Appellant had any such right to repossess the subject vehicle on account of non-payment of EMIs; and (2) whether any pre-repossession notice was duly served upon the Respondent.

On going through Clause No. 18 of the purported Loan-cum-Hypothecation-cum-Guarantee Agreement executed between the parties, we find that there was clear stipulation to the effect that in the event of default, the Lender would be entitled to, at all times to, take possession, seize, recover, appoint a receiver/manager, remove the Asset from its place of standing, and also be entitled to sell the Asset by public auction or by private contract. Such crystal clear stipulation in the aforesaid agreement give unequivocal answer to the first issue being noted hereinabove.

Again, on a reference to the copy of a letter-cum-notice dated 09-01-2012, the authenticity of which is not in dispute, we find that the Respondent was asked to clear the outstanding amount Rs. 5,83,614/- (computed up to 08-01-2012) and also to handover possession of the subject vehicle together with original Registration Certificate within 48 hours  from the date of receipt of notice.  It further transpires that the local police was also taken into confidence about the matter vide another letter.  It goes to show that the Appellant did not take repossession of the vehicle abruptly in a clandestine manner. 

It seems that the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint out of its conviction that the Appellant was not authorized to take repossession of the vehicle and also that such repossession took place without serving any prior intimation to the Respondent.  Aforesaid documents, however, blunts the findings of the Ld. District Forum on both counts. On the other hand, the Respondent has not filed any documentary proof, like FIR to show that the subject vehicle was forcefully repossessed from the custody of his driver.

We, thus, find no  irregularity in the action of the Appellant and accordingly, hold that the Appeal has got sufficient merit to succeed.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal be and the same is allowed on contest against the Respondent.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.