Member: Ritu Garodia The complaint is regarding deficiency in services on part of OP in repossession of vehicle financed by OP.
The Complainant got financed one HTV i.e A trailor (Tata 3015 Trolla) bearing no.HR-38-L-4709 with EMI of Rs.22,993/-, which was delivered on 02.04.05. A detail list for installments was provided to complainant on 11.05.05. The Complainant further refurbished the vehicle in question as per his needs. OP forcibly reposed the vehicle on 13.05.05 at 2:30 am with the help of goon. A complaint was made at P.S Saharan NIT, Faridabad where FIR was not lodged but DD entry was made. The complainant further states that no demand letter/notice was given to him before repossession of vehicle in question. A complaint against OP was also lodged with the police headquarters at ITO. Complainant has annexed letter dated 08.04.05 by OP where OP has approved the finance of the vehicle and amount to be disbursed on 02.04.05 and installment of Rs.22,993/- was to be paid by Complainant. Complainant has also annexed insurance papers for the vehicle wherein Rs.30,081/- has been paid as premium for insurance from 01.04.05 to 31.03.06. Complainant has further annexed details of refurbishment of vehicle in question amounting to Rs.90,000/-.
OP in its reply relies on agreement between the parties which has an arbitration clause and also refers to order passed by Ld. Civil Judge on 23.09.05 wherein directions were given to OP to refer the dispute for arbitration but till date no arbitration has taken place. OP has admitted and annexed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement between the parties. OP further alleges that as the first installment was not paid on time. OP repossessed the vehicle and sold it in accordance within the contract between the parties. OP in its application u/s 8 Arbitration and conciliation Act admitted that vehicle was sold on June 2005.
On careful perusal of pleadings, affidavit and documents attached, it is seen that purchase of vehicle on hire purchases scheme and its subsequent repossession in May 2005 is not disputed. OP has relied on arbitration clause in the agreement as well as subsequent order by Ld. Civil Judge, wherein direction was given that OP can refer the matter to arbitration. However, OP in completely silent about steps taken for arbitration. As per Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, Consumer Forum has parallel additional jurisdiction to dispose off the present complaint. OP admits to repossession of vehicle on nonpayment of installment in May 2005 but does not annexes any notice for repossession of vehicle in question. OP has admitted to sale of vehicle in June 2005 but has not adduced an iota of evidence as to publication for date of auction or notice to complainant.
OP has not even submitted the sale price of the vehicle in question and how the price recovered was set-off against the loans to be repaired by the Complainant.
It is apparent from the facts of the Complaint, OP has repossessed the vehicle forcibly in arbitrary and whimsical manner without the fulfilling the laid down rules and guidelines for such procedure like sending demand notice, publication of auction of vehicle, set off the dues of complainant against the sale price recovered. The namby pamby pleas set up by OP are vague and evasive.
We therefore held OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to pay Rs.1,43,074/- (Rs.22,993/- installment + Rs.90,000/- refurbishment + Rs.30,081/- for insurance) along with 9% interest from date of repossession till realization. We also award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of opportunity in earning livelihood, mental agony, harassment, inconveniences and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced in open Court on .06.04.2015 (C.K.CHATURVEDI) PRESIDENT (S.R. CHAUDHARY) (Ritu Garodia) MEMBER MEMBER
Comments