The court established that repossession and sale of the vehicle without proper notice and due to the seller's own default constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mrs. Veena Misra, Member—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 19.10.2004 in Complaint No. 86/04 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had purchased TVS Victor Motor Cycle, bearing Reg. No. CG 04/CA-5833 on 4.9.2002 for a sum of Rs. 40,729. He had deposited Rs. 14,361 in cash and got the remaining amount of Rs. 26,368 financed by the O.P. The complainant had alleged in the complaint that O.P. did not tell him anything about the terms and conditions and had got the blank hire purchase agreement signed by the complainant and copy of the same was not furnished to him despite request being made in this regard. It was further averred that 23 post-dated cheques for Rs. 1,755 each were obtained by the O.P. from the complainant. About 3/4th of the total number of instalments were received by O.P. and in the circumstances the vehicle was under the category of protected goods. It was further averred in the complaint that the O.P. never issued any notice to the complainant regarding non-payment of instalments or bouncing of any cheque. On 25.2.2004, the complainant’s vehicle was repossessed by the O.P. in the absence of the complainant and on queries being made by the complainant, he was told that unless the entire consolidated amount of remaining instalments is paid, the vehicle would not be released and would be sold to some other person. Even subsequent to repossession, the O.P. had received the amount of cheque for the month of March, 2004. The complainant had alleged that O.P. is guilty of deficiency in service.

3. The O.P. resisted the complaint and averred in the written version that the allegation regarding not telling about the terms and conditions and getting the blank hire purchase agreement signed by the complainant are totally false and baseless. However, the O.P. had admitted that they had obtained post-dated cheques from the complainant and had averred that as timely payment was not made the O.P. had intimated the complainant regarding the said default. Consequently, the complainant requested for extending time for payment of instalments for the month of November and December 2002 but had failed to deposit the amount of the aforesaid due instalments. It was averred in the written version that it is specifically mentioned in the hire purchase agreement that in case of non-payment of any instalment, the O.P. would be authorized to repossess the vehicle. Hence, it cannot be said that O.P. had repossessed the vehicle illegally. It was further averred that as per the hire purchase agreement the owner of the vehicle is the O.P. and after repossession, the O.P., as such owner, has sold the vehicle to some other person. The O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. Learned District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to make regular payment of due instalments and though the complainant had obtained time for depositing non-paid instalments, he failed to make necessary payment. Hence, repossession was justified and O.P. cannot be said to be deficient in service.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. He submitted that there was no default on the part of the complainant as O.P. had obtained 23 post-dated cheques and to receive the amount in time, they had to deposit the cheques for collection. Learned Counsel for appellant submitted that in the month of November and December, 2002, when the cheques had allegedly bounced, the appellant had sufficient amount in his account, as is evident from the copy of the statement of account