O R D E R
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Una, camp at Bilsapur, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.29/2017 titled Shashi Pal & Anr. Versus Authorized Signatory, Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Ltd. & Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No.1 Shashi Pal is registered owner of the vehicle bearing No. HP- 23A-3543. The said vehicle was financed by opposite parties/Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Ltd. Balance of loan on 30-11-2016 was Rs.40,000/- which was paid
2
accordingly but opposite parties/Finance company wrongly shown the balance due on 19-12-2016 as Rs.1,16,533/-. Complainant prepared bank draft of Rs.1.00 lakh on 22.12.2016 in favour of opposite parties/Finance company but opposite parties refused to accept the payment. No balance of previous loan of vehicle No. HP-24A-3543 remained against the complainant in any manner and the vehicle No.HP23A-3543 was wrongly impounded by opposite parties/Finance Company whereas loan has already been paid. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present comlaint.
3. The opposite parties/finance company resisted and contested the complaint by filing a joint reply and stated that complainants were not paying loan installments regularly and heavy amount was due to be recovered from the complainants. The opposite parties/Finance company legally took possession of said vehicle in due course of law and after receiving remaining amount vehicle has been released in
3
favour of complainants. Thereafter complainants suddenly sold the said vehicle to someone without taking NOC which was legally not permissible. Possession of vehicle was taken in accordance with law and as such there is no deficiency in service on behalf of opposite parties. A prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
4. The complainants filed rejoinder in which they denied the averments made in the reply and reaffirmed and reasserted the averments as those made in the complaint.
5. The complainant adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. However, the opposite parties did not adduce any evidence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, learned District Commission below dismissed the complaint of the complainants.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
4
8. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel of the appellants/complainants has submitted that the complainants are owners of the vehicle in question which was financed by the opposite parties/finance company. He further submitted that on 30.11.2016 balance loan amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to the opposite parties, but despite that the opposite parties have wrongly shown the balance due on 19.12.2016 as Rs.1,16,533/-. He further submitted that on 22.12.2016, the complainants issued bank draft of Rs.1.00 lakh in favour of the opposite parties, but the opposite parties refused to accept the payment. He further submitted that no loan amount is due against the complainants, but the vehicle was wrongly impounded by the opposite parties. He further submitted that impugned order is bad in law and facts and prays that appeal of the appellants/complainants be allowed.
5
10. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondents/opposite parties submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays that appeal of the appellants be dismissed as the vehicle in question was hypothecated by the appellants/complainants with the opposite parties as per hypothecation agreement.
FINDINGS
11. The admitted fact which emerges on record is that vehicle bearing No. HP-23A-3543 was financed by opposite parties/Finance Company.
12. The complainants have alleged that they were regularly paying the loan installments to opposite parties, but despite that the opposite parties/finance company took forcible possession of the vehicle.
13. Per contra, version of the opposite parties/Finance Company is that complainants were not paying installments regularly and heavy amount was due from complainants, so possession of vehicle was taken in
6
accordance with law, as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation/loan agreement.
14. Plea of the complainants is that on 20-04-2016, complainant No.1 paid balance amount of Rs.40,000/- but on 16-12-2016 vehicle was impounded by opposite parties/Finance company illegally.
15. However, the aforesaid plea of the complainants does not seem to be correct in the presence of loan account statement, Annexure C-4, which on perusal indicates that on 29-12-2016 payment of Rs.95,000/- was deposited in the loan account of vehicle bearing No. HP-23A-3543. The loan account statement, Annexure C-4, further indicates that Rs.1000/- was charged as bonus charges which means that complainants have defaulted in paying loan installments.
16. Since the complainants have got the vehicle financed from opposite parties/finance company, they were under legal obligation to repay the said loan as per the terms and conditions of the hypothecation/loan agreement and
7
since the complainants made default in repayment of loan amount, vehicle was impounded by finance company in accordance with the terms and conditions of hypothecation/ loan agreement.
17. The opposite parties/Finance company in their reply have specifically stated that when remaining amount was paid by the complainants, the vehicle in question was released in favour of the complainants and complainants without obtaining NOC sold the said vehicle to third party.
18. Since the opposites parities/finance company have taken possession of vehicle as per hypothecation/loan agreement on default of loan amount, therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to the opposite parties/finance company.
19. In view of the above stated facts, this Commission does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned
8
District commission below and same does not require any interference.
20. Consequently, appeal of the appellants/ complainants fails and same is hereby dismissed and impugned order passed by learned District Commission below remains upheld.
21. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
22. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of learned District Commission along with certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President
Manoj
9