IMPORTANT POINT
Financier cannot repossess vehicle in a high-handed manner.

Surjit Singh, (Retd.) President —Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby they have Tata Motors Finance Limited Versus Hem Raj been directed to return truck, bearing registration No.HP-65-3072 to the respondent, in good running condition, within five days, failing which to pay penalty of ‘1,000/- per day, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and have further been directed to pay a sum of ‘1.00 lac, as compensation for mental harassment and ‘5,000/-, as costs of complaint.

2. Respondent, Hem Raj, purchased a truck, sometime in the month of October, 2011. Appellants financed the purchase of that truck by the respondent. Respondent paid a sum of ‘40,000/-, by way of margin money. The remaining amount of ‘11,16,890/- was paid by the appellants, as financiers. Respondent spent a sum of ‘2,95,000/-, on fabrication of the body of the truck. As per Hire Purchase Agreement, executed between the appellants and respondent, the latter was to repay the loan amount, together with interest, in monthly instalments of ‘32,485/- for a period of four years. However, the first two instalments were to the tune of ‘15,000/- each.

3. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 02.11.2012, when the truck was Tata Motors Finance Limited Versus Hem Raj returning from Leh, musclemen of the appellants, got it stopped, at a place called Lunapani, located between Mandi and Sundernagar and forcibly took away the same. Appellants were allegedly approached to return the truck. They told that the truck had been handed over to one Sanjeev Kumar Thakur of Jahu and that the respondent could have it back from him, on payment of ‘50,000/-. Respondent alleged that he paid ‘50,000/- to the said Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, on 17.12.2012, but the truck was not returned to him. On these allegations, respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking issuance of a direction to the appellants to return the truck and to compensate him for the loss of earnings for the time the truck remained with them, besides seeking compensation for mental torture.

4. Complaint was filed on 5th March, 2013. Notices were sent to the appellants for 23.04.2013. An Advocate, by the name of Shri Amar Singh Thakur, appeared for both the appellants/opposite parties on 23.04.2013 and sought time to file reply. Thereafter, matter was adjourned five times for filing reply, on behalf of the appellants. Last opportunity was given Tata Motors Finance Limited Versus Hem Raj on 27.07.2013 to file reply on 13.08.2013. This adjournment was given, subject to payment of costs of ‘500/-. Appellants did not file reply, even on 13.08.2013, nor did they pay the costs. Learned District Forum, therefore, struck off the defence of the appellants and directed the respondent to produce ex-parte evidence. Thereafter, the respondent adduced ex-parte evidence and the learned District Forum, relying upon that evidence, allowed the complaint, and passed the impugned order, on 18.11.2013.

5. Present appeal against the said order was presented on 18.03.2014, or say five months after the passing of the impugned order, though the limitation is one month. Hence, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also filed. That application was allowed, subject to payment of costs of ‘5,000/-, vide our order dated 30.07.2014. Costs have not been paid. We proceed to dispose of the appeal, on merits, subject to the condition that costs of ‘5,000/- awarded, vide our order dated 30.07.2014, are paid, within fifteen days from today, failing which the appeal shall be deemed Tata Motors Finance Limited Versus Hem Raj to have been dismissed, irrespective of our order, on merits, which we proceed to pass hereinafter.

6. As already noticed, appellants did not file any reply