IMPORTANT POINT
Bank can repossess vehicle in case of default in repayment of loan.

Ashok Bhan, President— Aggrieved against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint, the Complainant/Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.

Facts

2. Briefly stated the facts as per averments made in the complaint are that the Petitioner approached M/s Modern Automobiles Ltd., Respondent No.3 herein for purchasing a brand new Maruti Car in the month of September, 2000. Respondent No.3 quoted the price of the model MPFI as Rs.1,90,950. Petitioner informed the Respondent No.3 that he did not have the requisite amount to pay the full sale price of the car. Respondent No. 3 then told the Petitioner that it could arrange the loan if the Petitioner can pay the margin money and post-dated cheques for monthly installments. Believing the said allurement and inducement, Petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5,058 in cash to Respondent No.3 on 28.9.1990 as margin money. Respondent No. 3 obtained Petitioner’s signatures on many printed papers including blank promissory notes, loan agreement where the blank columns were not filled and also on blank stamp papers and many blank cheques. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 informed the Petitioner that it had arranged a car loan of Rs. 1,90,950 from Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent No.2 herein through their branch at Chandigarh, Respondent No.1 herein. Petitioner alleged that the terms and conditions of the loan agreement were not disclosed to him and he was not allowed to read the same. After completion of necessary documents and formalities, Respondent No.3 supplied a new brand car bearing chassis No.2306827 and engine No.3315609 to the Petitioner under hypothecation to the Standard Chartered Bank. Petitioner paid Rs.58, 924 till July, 2001. Due to financial constraints he could not pay the remaining installments. The said car was recovered by the Chandigarh Police from some accused involved in a theft case and the temporary number was written on the vehicle. Vehicle was got released by the Bank on Supardari from the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Chandigarh in 2002 and instead of handing over the same back to the petitioner, the Bank sold the vehicle without his consent and knowledge. Petitioner received a notice from the Bank on 20.1.2005 informing that the vehicle had been sold but still a sum of Rs.1,40,717 was outstanding against him. According to the Petitioner, the Bank (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) committed grave deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by not handing back the car to him after getting it released on Superdari from the Court in spite of the fact that Respondent had received a sum of Rs.58, 924 from him out of the total amount of Rs.1,90,950. It was further alleged that the Respondent committed deficiency in service by selling the car to some other customer without his knowledge and consent and then demanding a sum of Rs.1,40,717 from him. That the Bank in connivance with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Respondent No. 4 herein had played fraud upon the petitioner by issuing the insurance policy for the period from 25.11.2004 to 24.11.2005 in the name of the Petitioner when the car was not in his possession. Complaint was filed seeking a direction to the Respondents to return the car without any delay and pay compensation of Rs.1, 00, 000 or in the alternative to refund the sum of Rs.58,924 deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondents.

3. Respondent Bank, on being served, filed its written statement. It was pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable as the same had arisen out of a finance agreement which was a contractual relationship governed by the terms and conditions of the contract. That there was no relationship of ‘customer’ and ‘service provider’. That the Petitioner had himself approached the bank for availing finance facility and based on his representation and pro