Back
UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta,
President & Mrs. Devinderjit Dhatt, Member
KANWALJIT SINGH—Appellant
versus
CITICORP MARUTI FINANCE LTD.—Respondent
Appeal Case No. 146 of 2005—Decided on 7.12.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Aditya Makkhim, Advocate.
Deficiency in service by the respondent in the hire purchase agreement and the obligation to refund the amount along with interest.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Hire Purchase Agreement - 59 equated monthly instalments - Seizure of vehicle - No objection certificate - Deficiency in service - Refund of amount - Interest - [Consumer Dispute] - [Hire Purchase Agreement, Consumer Protection Act] - The court discussed the hire purchase agreement and the terms of repayment, the seizure of the vehicle by the respondent, the issuance of a no objection certificate, and the deficiency in service. The court highlighted the deficiency in service by the respondent and directed the refund of the amount along with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant entered into a hire purchase agreement with the respondent for a car finance facility. Due to default in payment, the respondent seized the vehicle and sold it in auction. The appellant later paid the balance amount and obtained a no objection certificate, but the respondent did not return the car.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was deficiency in service by the respondent and directed the refund of the amount along with interest to the appellant.
Issues: Default in payment, seizure of vehicle, issuance of no objection certificate, deficiency in service, refund of amount
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's actions constituted deficiency in service, and therefore, directed the refund of the amount along with interest to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to refund Rs. 1,52,000 to the appellant along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of seizure.
Mr. Justice K.C. Gupta, President—This appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that M/s. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (respondent No. 1) is finance company carrying on business of auto finance on interest. M/s. Axcess Marketing is its agent while M/s. Aggarwal Rajiv and Associates is its collecting agent for the area of Chandigarh.
3. It was next averred that the appellant approached M/s. Axcess Marketing in the month of May, 2001 for getting brand new Maruti Standard car financed from the respondent. Accordingly M/s. Axcess Marketing got an agreement dated 15.5.2001 and other documents signed from the appellant. However, it did not allow the appellant to read the contents of those documents. The appellant paid a sum of Rs. 38,700 in all vide various receipts. M/s. Pasco Automobiles, Chandigarh delivered a Maruti car to the appellant on 14.5.2001 which was financed by the respondent through its marketing agent M/s. Axcess Marketing for a sum of Rs. 1,85,000. The appellant was required to return the amount in 60 equated monthly instalments of Rs. 4,220 each. The said car was registered with the Registering Authority, Chandigarh vide Registration No. CH-03J4720. However, the appellant defaulted in making payment of some of instalments. He had written some letters to the respondent requesting it to extend the time of payment as he was unable to pay instalments, but no relief was given.
4. It was further alleged that respondent without the knowledge of appellant seized the car. He had lodged a complaint with the Police Station, Mohali about the theft of car but the police had shown him documents revealing that the representatives of respondent had taken away the vehicle for non-payment of instalments. By illegal seizure of the car, he had suffered a loss of Rs. 78,700.
5. It was further averred that the appellant approached respondent in the month of May, 2002 and on its assurance he had paid the balance amount and the respondent issued final payment certificate dated 20.5.2002, copy of which is Annexure C-15, but the respondent failed to give delivery of the vehicle. It also did not refund the amount.
6. With these allegations, complaint was filed and he demanded compensation of Rs. 5 lacs besides returning the car or in the alternative demanded price of the car.
7. Respondent contested the complaint and filed written reply. It stated that that vehicle Maruti 800 was provided to the appellant under hire purchase facility and was granted a loan of Rs. 1,70,770 which was to be repaid in 59 months i.e., Rs. 4,220 were to be paid monthly as hire charges. However, the appellant defaulted in payment of monthly instalments and as such it was forced to repossess the vehicle and sold it to M/s. Reliance Tourist and Finance Co. in April, 2002 for consideration of Rs. 1,52,000 which amount was credited to the account of the appellant as reflected in Annexure O.P.-1/1. After this, still the balance of Rs. 55,079.37 remained due from the appellant. It further stated that exercise of right under the hire purchase agreement cannot be construed as deficiency in service as it had exercised the right in accordance with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement. It denied that NOC was ever issued to the appellant but asserted that NOC was issued to the new customer of the vehicle and the appellant somehow obtained copy of NOC and concocted a false story. It further stated that since, appellant had not paid the finance amount of the car, so, there was no question of giving delivery of the vehicle or refund of any amount to him.
8. M/s. Axcess Marketing was sued as respondent No. 2 while M/s. Aggarwal Rajiv and Associates was sued as respondent No. 3. However, name of M/s. Axcess Marketing was deleted at the instance of a
