BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 15/2008
Date of presentation:22.02.2008
Date of decision: 24/12/2009
Ms. Bimla Sharma W/o Late Sh. Darshan Kumar,
Resident of Village Tikkari, P.O. Parwanoo,
Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan H.P.
… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Libra Finane Limited, B-2, Bhargava Lane, Boulevard Road, Delhi 110054 Through its Managing Director/ Director and general Manager.
2. M/s Libra Finance Limited,
Branch Office Darlaghat,
Tehsil Arki, District Solan H.P.
Through its Branch Manager cum authorized person Mr. Raju.
…Opposite Parties.
For the complainant: Mr. Ram Rattan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Ms. Suchitra, Advocate, vice
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate.
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant, avers that, she got the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, financed for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, which amount was to be defrayed to the OPs, within two years through installments. It is averred that the possession of the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244 was handed over to her, on payment of Rs.2,75,000/- out of which Rs.1,10,000/- was advanced by the OPs, and the remaining sum of Rs.1,65,000/- was paid to Shri Amrik Singh through Mr. Anil and Gurmukh. It is averred that, on, 22.03.2007 the OPs, repossessed the truck from the possession of the son of the complainants, hence, the mater was reported to the Police, upon which FIR bearing registration No.46, dated 22.03.2007, came to be registered with the Police, which was released as per the direction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Panchkulla. Thereafter, again on, 12.02.2008, the OPs repossessed the aforesaid car, and has failed to return its possession to her, and has also failed to issue no objection certificate despite her repeated requests and visits in this behalf. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, and on merits, contended that the complainant took on hire purchase one truck Eicher Canter of 1996 Model bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, vide Hire Purchase Agreement, dated 09.11.2006. It is further contended that as per agreement the total hire purchase money agreed was Rs.1,34,200/- payable in 24 monthly hire charges. They further contended that a sum of Rs.82,926.93 is due to them from the complainant, which she is avoiding to pay. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in unauthorisedly repossessing the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-6244, hence, causing financial loss to her, tantamounts both the deficiency in service, as well, as, an unfair trade practice. The OPs, have repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, the complainant was very irregular in making the payment of monthly hire charges, and a sum of Rs.82,926.93, is, still due from the complainant, as hire charges, hence, is exculpating their liability.
6. So far as the plea of the OPs, that, a sum of Rs.82,926.93, is, still outstanding against the complainant, we find no material on record to substantiate the said fact. However, the said averment has remained only in the realm of the reply of the OPs, and has remained unsubstantiated. Assuming that the complainant, was, irregular in making defrayment of the loan installments, even then, their action of repossession of the vehicle, by use of force, without, a, notice to the complainant preceding such repossessing, when such a notice in case served upon the complainant would have validated their act, hence, lack of proof of notice to the complainant or the absence of notice to the complainant by the OP, preceding their act of repossession, is wholly unwarranted. In taking this view, we are supported by the law as laid down by the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission, in First Appeal No.254/2008, decided on 01.10.2009, in case Jitender Singh Gulerai versus ICICI Bank Limited and others.
7. Since, the truck had been illegally repossessed by use of force, by the OPs, hence, depriving the complainant of its use, for the period for which it remained not in possession of the complainant, while it having come to be repossessed by the OPs, as such, the complaint, in the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, is, allowed to the extent that the complainant, is, held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as damages from the OPs, for illegal repossession of truck bearing registration No.HR-686244. The aforesaid adjudged amount has been arrived at, for, lack of apposite evidence, qua loss of financial earnings to the complainant during the period of time, it remained with the OPs. The aforesaid amount shall also comprise indemnification to the complainant, for pain, suffering, as well, as, inconvenience. The litigation cost, is, quantified at, Rs.2500/- payable by the OPs, to the complainant. Since, the vehicle has already been ordered to be returned to the complainant, vide zimini order dated 22.02.2008, hence, we do not think it proper to again order the return of the vehicle to the complainant. However, the complainant, is, directed to deposit the installments of the hire charges, with the OPs, as per the schedule of payment as is existing in Hire Purchase Agreement Annexure R-1.
8. The amount aforesaid shall be defrayed to the complainant by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.20,000/-. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of.
9. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.