Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
P.S. Rana (R) President, Vijay Pal Khachi Member and Meena Verma Member
Pawan Sharma —Appellant
versus
Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited Through its General Manager —Respondent
First Appeal No.195 of 2016
Decided on 10.3.2017
For the Appellant:Mr. Vivek Sharma Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Madhu Thakur and Mr. Sanjay Dalmia Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Under hypothecation agreement finance company is owner of subject matter and purchaser is only hirer.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Financial services—Hire-Purchase—Repossession of vehicle—Complaint dismissed by District Forum—Vehicle was hypothecated with finance company—Under hypothecation agreement finance company is owner of subject matter and purchaser is only hirer who would acquire ownership right after clearing entire loan amount—Finance Company can take possession of vehicle after giving notice of default for repayment of loan amount—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Financial services—Hire-Purchase—Terms and conditions of agreement cannot be unilaterally changed by any of parties—Parties are bound by agreement and nothing could be added or detracted from agreement by any of parties after execution of agreement—If one of parties to agreement fails to perform his part of contract it cannot compel other party of agreement to perform its part which other party was required to perform. (Para 11)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
P.S. Rana (R) President—Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.236 of 2012 title Pawan v. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited & Anr. decided on 20.04.2016 wherein learned District Forum dismissed complaint of complainant.
Brief facts of Case :
2. Complainant Pawan filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum pleaded therein that complainant purchased a vehicle bearing No. HP-62A-2022 (Truck AL 1112) to earn his livelihood. It is pleaded that complainant is a driver. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by opposite party No.2 Shri Ram General Transport Finance Co. Ltd. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 obtained sign of complainant upon blank cheques for disbursement of loan amount. It is further pleaded that total sale consideration price of vehicle was Rs.960206/- (Nine lacs sixty thousand two hundred and six). It is further pleaded that complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 in the year 2006 which was to be returned in monthly equal instalments of Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred) per month. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 sent letter annexure C-1 relating to default in payment of instalments. It is further pleaded that complainant had paid regular instalments. It is pleaded that complainant had paid some instalments in a delayed manner. It is further pleaded that complainant paid an amount of 459969/- (Four lacs fifty nine thousand nine hundred sixty nine). It is further pleaded that complainant has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine). It is further pleaded that despite the fact that complainant has paid excess amount opposite parties forcibly snatched vehicle of complainant on 27.07.2012 from Azadpur market Delhi. It is further pleaded that complainant has purchased vehicle for earning his livelihood. Complainant sought following reliefs (i) To restrain opposite parties from selling vehicle of complainant or any part of vehicle (ii) Complainant sought additional relief to return snatched vehicle of complainant bearing No. HP-62A-2022 (iii) Complainant also sought alternative relief of return of Rs.765175/- (Seven lacs sixty five thousand one hundred seventy five) i.e. earnest money + instalments amount already paid to opposite parties (iv) Complainant also sought relief to cancel all collection of agent and other charges (v) In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.100000/- (One lac) for mental harassment & tension (vi) In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) per day from the date of snatching of vehicle (vii) Complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand).
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer. It is pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts. It is pleaded that complainant has financed vehicle in question for commercial purpose. It is admitted that complainant had purchased a truck bearing No. HP-62A-2022 and sought financial assistance from opposite parties. It is further pleaded that loan amount was to be paid in fifty five equal monthly instalments. It is further pleaded that complainant was under legal obligation to pay first instalment to the tune of Rs.18992/- (Eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety two) and was also under legal obligation to pay second instalment to the tune of Rs. 19014/- (Nineteen thousand and fourteen). It is further pleaded that rest of fifty three instalments were to be paid by complainant @ Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred) per month. It is denied that complainant has pai
