Order No.  14  dt.  20/06/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the owner in respect of vehicle no. WB07 J0334. The complainant in order to purchase the said vehicle made contact with the o.p. for availing of the loan. The complainant in order to avail of the loan had to put his signature on some blank papers. Though the loan was provided but the rate of interest was not mentioned. The complainant after receiving the chassis invested an amount for Rs. 5,00,000/- for building up the body of the truck. The complainant plied the said vehicle on the road and requested the o.p. for providing the necessary documents. The complainant on numerous occasions requested the o.p. to for providing the documents relating to the payment of the amount to the o.p. but no such documents were provided. The complainant alleged that fraud was practiced by the o.p. by inserting facts and figures as per the desire of the o.p. On the basis of the said fact the complainant alleged that in spite of payment of installment of the loan amount the o.p. was trying to take possession of the vehicle. It was further alleged that the o.p. engaged some anti-social elements to take the possession of the vehicle for which the complainant by filing this case prayed for restraining the o.p. from taking possession of the said vehicle as well as compensation and litigation cost.

          The o.p. by filing a w/v denied all the material allegations of the complaint stating inter alia that every loan disbursed by the o.p. to the borrower is required to repay the same in accordance with equated monthly installment (EMI) to the o.p. company. If any default is caused from the end of the borrower in that event late fee charges, overdue charges etc. are attracted over and above the interest due. It was stated that the complainant had taken a loan amount of Rs. 21,15,000/- and another sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the o.p. The complainant had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,76,278/- and Rs. 43,935/- towards the financial charges. Accordingly the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 33,11,278/- and Rs. 1,93,935/- respectively towards contact value of both the contracts. The o.p. denied that any fraud was practiced by the o.p. The o.p. further stated that the complainant failed to pay the regular EMIs. In order to get rid of the payment of the said EMIs the complainant cooked up a story that the o.p. obtained signature of the complainant on some blank papers and tried to take possession of the vehicle. The o.p. is very reputed organization and never indulges in any illegal actions or plans. The complainant is enjoying the loan amounts and intentionally defaulted in payment of the EMIs and made false allegations against the o.p. In view of the above facts and circumstances the o.p. prays for the dismissal of the case.

          Considering the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-

1. Whether the complainant took loan from the o.p. ?
2. Whether the complainant paid the EMIs regularly ?
3. Whether on failure to pay the EMIs the o.p. has the right to take possession of the vehicle ?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. ? 
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?  

Decisions with reasons :-

          All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

          The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle no. WB07 J0334 and in order to purchase the vehicle the complainant approached the o.p. for obtaining loan. The o.p. at the time of granting loan obtained signature on some blank papers. Taking advantage of those papers the complainant had started to put pressure upon the complainant for payment of the excessive amount than that of the contractual amount entered into between the complainant and the o.p. The o.p. on the basis of such surreptitious means demanded excess amount and on failure to pay the said amount the complainant was threatened that the o.p. would take the possession of the said vehicle. It was further alleged by the complainant that the complainant paid the EMIs but the o.p. on the basis of illegal demand without informing the complainant of the excess amount the step taken by the o.p. for taking possession of the vehicle the complainant had to file this case. The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that in order to get relief the complainant had to file this case praying for restraining the o.p. from taking possession of the said vehicle as well as for compensation.

The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that the o.p. is a reputed company and it is not the practice of the o.p. to obtain signature on blank papers. The o.p. disbursed the loan amount to the borrower/complainant with the condition to repay the same in accordance with the equated monthly installment. If any default is made extra charges will be paid by the borrower. It was also emphasized by the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. that the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly and apprehending that the legal measure may be taken by the o.p. and in order to counter the same in anticipation the complainant made false allegation against the o.p. that the signatures were obtained on some blank papers as well as the o.p. tried to take possession of the vehicle forcibly. On the basis of the said fact the Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.

Considering the submission of the respective parties it is undisputed fact that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle in question. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant in order to purchase the said vehicle approached the o.p. for loan. The o.p. after scrutinizing the documents sanctioned loan to the complainant and the vehicle was purchased by him. In the loan agreement it was specifically stated that the complainant would pay the EMI regularly and on failure to pay the EMI he will have to bear the extra charges towards the payment of EMI in late as well as for other penalty charges. The o.p. is reputed company and the complainant being an owner of the vehicle it is hardly believable that he will put hi signature on some blank papers. It is found from the materials on record that the complainant failed to pay the EMI regularly and apprehending the consequence of not payment of the amount and made wild allegations against the o.p. The complainant being fully aware that for non-payment of the EMIs as per loan agreement the o.p. had every right to take possession of the vehicle in question. The loan was granted to the complainant with the condition to pay the loan amount as per the terms of the loan agreement took place between the complainant and the o.p. The o.p. being the provider of loan has every right to take possession of the vehicle of non-payment of the dues. The complainant in order to get rid of the legal measure that the o.p. would have taken against the complainant made false allegation against the o.p. and filed this case without having any cogent ground whatsoever. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the o.p. has not committed any deficiency in sevice for which the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.   

          Hence,        

          ordered,

          that the CC/707/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost. The interim order granted earlier is hereby vacated.

          Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.